Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 1st August, 1952, for the Summer Recess,—met at Half-past Two o' Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATHS OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the deaths of the Rt. Hon. George Tomlinson, Member for Farnworth; and Fred Longden, Esquire, Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Members.

WRIT ISSUED DURING ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a warrant for a new Writ for Cleveland, in the room of Octavius George Willey, Esquire, C.B.E. deceased.

NEW WRITS

For Wycombe, in the room of William Waldorf Astor (commonly called the Honourable William Waldorf Astor), now Viscount Astor, called up to the House of Peers;

For North Antrim, in the room of Sir Robert William Hugh O'Neill, Baronet (Chiltern Hundreds);

For Belfast, South, in the room of Conolly Hugh Gage, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HAMILTON BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Whisky (Export Prices)

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will open conversations with the whisky distillers with a view to increasing the price of whisky exported to dollar countries, thus ensuring a further easement of the dollar position.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government's policy is to leave the determination of export prices to United Kingdom exporters.

Miss Ward: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a great many people feel that the price of whisky could very well be increased with benefit to the


people of this country; and am I to understand that if that is so it is not possible for my hon. and learned Friend just to indicate that we might get a better price, because it would help with our balance of payments?

Mr. Strauss: The price at which Scotch whisky sells in those countries is greater than that at which any other whisky sells. I do not take the view that Governments understand business better than those engaged in it.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby), at Strasbourg, offered to give away good Scotch whisky free? Is that in line with Government policy?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that Scotch whisky distillers are neglecting their patriotic duty and charging too low prices, is not it time they were nationalised?

Films (Dollar Expenditure)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent negotiations with the United States of America about cinematograph films: and, in particular, on the steps he is taking to reduce dollar expenditure on film imports.

Mr. H. Strauss: The purpose of the recent negotiations was to secure a modification of the arrangements made in July, 1951, with the American film industry in order to diminish the amount which could be remitted in dollars. It has now been agreed to amend these arrangements by reducing by 5,900,000 dollars the amount which can be so remitted. I am circulating fuller particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:
Discussions between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and of United States film interests, about the extent to which the earnings of United States films in this country are allowed to be transferred into dollars, took place in Washington last month. As a result of these discussions, agreement was reached that the present arrangements, which were negotiated in July, 1951, should be modified so as to reduce by 5,900,000 dollars the amount which United States interests are allowed to transfer into dollars. One million four hundred thousand dollars of this amount is in respect of transfers which would, under the arrangements as they stood, have been permissible in the year ended 30th September, 1952, and the

remainder in respect of transfers which would have become permissible in the year ending 30th September, 1953.
These arrangements mean that slightly more than half of the total earnings of United States films in this country are allowed to be converted into dollars. The total amount allowed to be so converted during the 12 months ending 30th September, 1953, will be approximately 20,000,000 dollars, representing rather less than 2 per cent. of our dollar expenditure on imports from the United States. Under the Anglo-American Film Agreement, United States film earnings over and above the amounts allowed to be transferred may be spent only in certain specified ways, the most important of which are the production of films in the sterling area and the acquisition of overseas rights of films produced in the sterling area.

Clothing Industry Development Council

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the Clothing Industry Development Council.

Mr. H. Strauss: For information on the work of the Clothing Industry Development Council, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Council's second annual report, of which I am sending him a copy. My right hon. Friend is at present in touch with representatives of both sides of the clothing industry about the future of the Council and hopes to be able to make a statement on the subject soon.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a large section of the clothing industry feel that this Council serves no useful purpose, is a waste of money, and ought to be wound up?

Mr. Strauss: I am aware that there has been some difference of opinion about this Council, but I think, in view of the discussions that are now going on, that it would not be advisable for me to say anything further on this occasion.

Mr. Robson Brown: Is the Minister aware that this difference of opinion is not shared by many efficient firms in the industry who consider that the contribution to the industry by the Clothing Industry Development Council in the field of production efficiency has been important, and should be continued?

Census of Production

Wing Commander Hulbert: asked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of his Department in regard to the continuance of the Census of Production.

Mr. H. Strauss: In order to reduce statistical work to the minimum required to meet the essential needs of Government and industry, the censuses for the years 1952 and 1953 will be based on sampling methods, as a result of which a large proportion of the smaller and medium sized establishments will not have to make returns. This is in accordance with the advice of the Advisory Committee.

Film Production Fund

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the need for long-term planning of film production, he will convene a conference of representatives of all sections of the film industry at an early date to discuss the continuance after August, 1954, of the British Film Production Fund.

Mr. H. Strauss: I understand that discussions on the future of the British Film Production Fund are already taking place within the industry. We are watching the progress of these discussions with interest, and are confident that all sections of the industry recognise the importance of bringing them to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.

Coronation Visitors (Floating Hotels)

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made for mooring passenger vessels in Dover Harbour for the Coronation to give additional hotel accommodation.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am glad to say that the port authorities at Dover have planned to make one berth, or possibly two berths, available in the harbour, if required, for vessels acting as floating hotels. So far as I am aware, these facilities have not been taken up, but I am informed by the British Travel and Holidays Association that they will put any interested party of whom they hear in touch with the port authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister also consider the possibility of mooring some of these vessels in the Thames with a view to counteracting the profiteering, of which there are already signs, in connection with the forth-coming Coronation?

Mr. Strauss: I am not expressing any agreement with the latter observation of the hon. and gallant Member, but arrangements have already been made for facilities on the Thames.

Mrs. Mann: In view of the disgusting prices charged in London hotels to Members of Parliament, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider mooring some of these vessels at Westminster Bridge, for example?

Cotton Textile Industry

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement with regard to the future of, and employment in, the cotton textile industry.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am not at present prepared to make a general statement about the future of the cotton textile industry, but there are welcome signs that the worst of the recession in the textile trades is past.

Mr. Hale: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say why he is not prepared to make a general statement, in view of the fact that a debate on this matter took place in this House as far back as last February or March? Would he bear in mind that although there are some signs of improvement, in Oldham certainly it is reported that Coronation orders which, are keeping some mills going will be fulfilled before February, which means that some of these mills will be closed? Will he also bear in mind that there is serious unemployment in the engineering industry, particularly in the textile machinery industry, and that this has become a matter of first-class and urgent importance?

Mr. Strauss: I shall certainly bear alt relevant matters in mind, but I do not propose to make any general statement, as I do not think it would be useful at this stage.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that if the Bevanites go on making anti-American speeches we shall not be able to sell textiles in America at all?

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say what progress he has made in his investigation of the question of whether Development Area facilities are to be given to this area of Lancashire, which is by no means as optimistic


about the recovery in the cotton trade as he is himself?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member has questioned me on an important subject, but it is a different one from that on the Order Paper. Perhaps he will put it down.

German Enemy Property (Claims)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the hardship caused because certain persons who have failed to lodge their claims for payment in the distribution of German enemy property within the specified time are debarred from sharing in the distribution; and whether he will now extend the period within which claims may be lodged.

Mr. H. Strauss: Yes, Sir. The original period for making claims was fixed at three months in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, but my right hon. Friend has recently reviewed this matter and has now made an Order extending the time for all claims under the Distribution of German Enemy Property (No. 2) Order until 30th November. In justice to the great body of claimants who lodged their claims within the original period and are awaiting the distribution which can only be made after all the claims have been received and examined, this must be accepted as the final date on which any claim can be admitted.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this decision, this humane decision, will be welcomed?

Children's Clothing and Footwear

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to reduce the present high prices of children's clothing and footwear.

Mr. H. Strauss: We are anxious that supplies of children's clothing and footwear of good quality shall be available at reasonable prices, and consider that in present market conditions this object is most likely to be achieved by free competition between suppliers. Prices of these goods have in general fallen since the beginning of this year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would the Parliamentary Secretary give some indication to the public in what respect the prices of children's clothing and footwear have fallen since the beginning of the year, because there are still wide-spread complaints?

Mr. Strauss: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Ministry of Labour Index of Retail Prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Balance of Payments

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the latest position regarding overseas balance of payments.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The latest information on the balance of payments was given in the usual monthly announcement on the gold and dollar reserves, which was published on 2nd October.

Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the marked improvement which he has been able to show—and on which I for one would like to congratulate him—brings nearer the time when the £ may be freed on the exchanges, a course which has been recommended by high authorities?

Mr. Butler: The objective which the hon. Member has mentioned is no doubt a laudible one, but it is important to proceed by degrees towards it. I am very glad to be able to state that the improvement we showed in the balance of payments is already a step in the right direction.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Chancellor tell us how much the improvement in the United Kingdom balance of payments position is due to changes in the import and export prices, and how much it is due to the decline in the volume of imports associated with the fall in production?

Mr. Butler: Part of it, as I have endeavoured to explain in public statements, is due to an improvement in the terms of trade in our favour. I regret that the balance of payments situation is not better by an improvement in the export position, towards which the country should certainly devote its attention in the future if we are not only


to maintain our position but effect a lasting improvement. I have never exaggerated the success we have achieved, but it is gratifying that with the sterling area we are now in balance with a small surplus, excluding American aid, but we have a long way still to go.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Chancellor be good enough to publish the figures showing exactly how much the improvement is due to a change in the terms of trade and how much to other factors, and what they are?

Mr. Butler: I can hardly publish more figures than are in the balance of payments papers, but I will certainly keep up the level of publishing figures established by precedent. The right hon. Gentleman may feel assured that if I see any opportunity of publishing figures which explain the situation to the public I shall do so, as that is the one thing I desire.

Mr. Gaitskell: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am genuinely seeking information and I should be grateful, as it would save us on this side of the House the labour of calculation, if he would publish the figures I have asked for.

Lead Imports (Non-Sterling Currencies)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much dollar and other non-sterling currency he estimates will have to be made available to importers of lead during the next three years.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It is not possible to estimate precisely how much dollar and other non-sterling currency will have to be made available to importers of lead during the next three years. It is not expected that it will differ markedly either from the amount which would have been needed had public trading in lead continued or from the amounts needed in previous years.

Mr. Strauss: While it is improbable that there will be any additional amount of dollars required at the moment, does the Chancellor appreciate that market conditions will change, as importers in the future will be able to buy lead from dollar sources as they want, which will tend to increase dollar imports of lead

as against sterling imports, with consequential grave inroads into our dollar reserves?

Mr. Butler: In any case, a large proportion of our imports come from the sterling area, but the point put by the right hon. Gentleman was borne in mind before the decision to open the private market was taken, and, as far as I can make out, the situation is a little better, as I have stated.

Defence Expenditure

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the monthly totals of defence expenditure since the beginning of the current financial year; and at what annual rate this expenditure is now running.

Mr. R. A. Butler: For the reasons given in my reply to my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), on 17th June, it is not the practice to publish figures of Departmental disbursements at short intervals. A monthly hgure would certainly be no reliable guide to the year's out-turn.

Mr. Swingler: Can the Chancellor now tell the House what was the firm programme of defence expenditure on which the late Government had decided, and what was the relation between that programme and the programme of exports, which the Government are trying to promote?

Mr. Butler: The answer to that question would entail a public debate, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a specific question. I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the simple point which is contained in the question put to him by my hon. Friend? Can he state whether the annual rate of defence expenditure this year is higher or lower than the annual rate of defence expenditure last year?

Mr. Butler: I have given my reasons for not being able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, and therefore it becomes equally difficult to answer the question put by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I will say in general that, on the Exchequer out-turn for the past half-year, it was apparent that this year a


larger proportion of defence expenditure had fallen in the first quarter of this year than in the comparable period of last year.

Mr. Shinwell: Would that mean that, in the first quarter of this year, the annual rate of defence expenditure was higher than for the equivalent period of last year?

Mr. Butler: Not really. If the right hon. Gentleman had been spending his vacation following up my public speeches, which I recommend to his attention, he would have seen that I have said on one or two occasions that, in the second quarter, defence expenditure showed a decline on the first quarter, and that that just shows the difficulty of making up one's mind on the year's out-turn on figures published periodically.

Equal Pay

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his further conversations with the Trades Union Congress on the question of equal pay.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I was asked by the deputation from the Trades Union Congress who came to see me on 14th July if I would authorise the Whitley Council to begin discussions on the various possible schemes for the gradual introduction of equal pay. A similar request was put to me by the Staff Side on 17th September. As I explained to the deputation from the Staff Side, in view of the present internal financial position, I do not wish to raise false hopes that it will be likely that a start on equal pay can be made in the near future. In these circumstances, I am considering whether it would be desirable to authorise the Whitley Council to discuss possible schemes.

Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that industrial workers and civil servants, particularly a section of the Civil Service like the factory inspectors, are entitled to go to arbitration, he will consider allowing the women's Civil Service to go to arbitration in order to find out whether it is really just to continue to discriminate against women in the Civil Service?

Mr. Butler: I am, of course, aware of the troubles and anxieties of women in

the Civil Service, but the situation as I now understand it is that representatives of the Staff Side, who are now in touch with representatives of the Official Side, are satisfied that, at the moment, we are doing our best to see whether it would be honourable, in the interests of both parties, to proceed with these discussions, and, if it is, we shall so proceed.

Savings Certificates (Interest)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the higher rates of interest now being offered on new British Government issues, he will increase the interest paid on National Savings Certificates, and so encourage the voluntary workers in the movement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. The present rate of interest is still generous bearing in mind that it is not subject to Income Tax. The large increase in the sales of National Savings Certificates since I raised the limit on holdings supports this view.

Mr. Osborne: Surely the Chancellor is aware that the weekly wage earner gets no element of tax-free advantage on the interest, and, since it is the weekly wage earner whose savings we need to attract, will he not increase the nominal amount of interest so as to give these workers more encouragement to save?

Mr. Butler: I am always ready to consider anything which would help the Savings Movement, but I am satisfied that the steps I have recently taken have had effect, and we had better see how they work out.

Dividends and Wages

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was distributed in dividends after payment of Income Tax during the last financial year; how much was paid in wages and salaries; and how much per week the total dividend distributions represent spread over the 23,478,000 total working population.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Estimates of dividends paid and of wages and salaries are not available for the last financial year. For the calendar year 1951, debenture interest and dividends on preference and ordinary shares paid by companies are estimated to have been £596 million


before tax and wages and salaries £7,735 million. No estimate is available of the amount of Income Tax attributable to debenture interest and dividends. The total of £596 million, if spread over 23,478,000 persons, would represent 9s. 9d. per week per head.

Mr. Osborne: Is that figure of 9s. 9d. not misleading, in so far as the £596 million paid out by way of interest on dividends would be subject to the deduction of more than half for Income Tax and Surtax, and could the Chancellor give us the net figure?

Mr. Butler: It has taken me quite a long time to prepare that answer, but I will certainly see if I can improve upon it next time.

Mr. Erroll: Is it not the case that a large amount of debenture and preference interest finds its way back to the working population in the form of pensions scheme payments?

Mr. Nicholson: Would it extend the Chancellor's mathematical powers too much to ask him to break down that figure as between, on the one hand, debenture and preference shares, and, on the other, ordinary share dividends?

Mr. Butler: I will do my best to recalculate, if not break down, the figure, if my hon. Friend will put down a Question.

Taxation and Pensions Committee

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the Report of the No. 2 Tucker Committee on Taxation and Pensions.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not at present able to add anything to the answer given to my hon. Friend's Question on this subject on 29th July.

Mr. Erroll: Could the Chancellor perhaps hurry up the presentation of this Report, so that the recommendations made in it may still be in time to find their way into the Finance Bill of 1953?

Mr. Butler: I do not give any undertaking as to what is to be in the Finance Bill next year, but I am in favour of receiving this Report as soon as it is convenient.

Foreign Travel Allowance

Mr. Baker White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special currency allowance, over and above the statutory £25 foreign travel allowance, was granted to Sir Bernard and Lady Docker for their visit to the South of France in September and for what purpose the special allowance was given.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It is not the practice to disclose details of the relations between individuals and the Exchange Control.

Mr. Baker White: While realising that the Chancellor may be unable to give details in individual cases, may I ask him if he is aware that, from everybody's point of view, it would be a very good thing to clear up a mystery which is mystifying a large number of people?

Mr. Snow: Is the Chancellor setting himself up as the "Dockers' Q.C.?"

Mr. Butler: I fully understand the anxiety of the hon. Member, and I think it would really be convenient if I could answer the later Questions on the Order Paper—as there are several other Questions—and, in the course of my answers, I think the attitude of the Government and any projected action will appear.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to counter the evasion of the £25 currency limit by British citizens taking holidays abroad.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to prevent expenditure abroad by British tourists in excess of the £25 limit.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It would not be in the public interest to disclose measures taken against evasion of currency regulations. Hon. Members can be assured that whenever there is prima facie reason to suspect an offence, the matter is investigated.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, firstly, that in some tourist centres these evasions are carried out on a highly organised basis by methods which are widely known and which his officers could therefore deter, and, secondly, that the great majority of British tourists abroad, who are, of course, honourable and law abiding citizens,


suffer great distress from the sight of a minority of their fellow citizens who are bringing our regulations into disrepute?

Mr. Butler: As I propose to state in answer to a later Question—and I think I had better state it now—I cannot state too clearly that such evasions are contrary to the best interests of this country. I must assure the House that what I have just said in answer to the Question, namely, that whenever there is a prima facie reason to suspect an offence the matter is investigated, represents the truth about the present position.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he pursues this matter very vigorously he will have the support of the whole of this House and of the public outside?

Mr. Butler: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am certain that these sorts of evasions ought not to be permitted.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons have been prosecuted from the beginning of this year to the latest convenient date for the evasion of the regulation limiting the allowance of currency for a tourist to £25; how many persons have been convicted for this offence; how many have been fined and what was the average fine; and how many have been sentenced to imprisonment and what was the average term of imprisonment.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Excluding prosecutions relating to offences committed in an earlier period, there have been seven prosecutions this year and 11 cases are awaiting hearing. All the seven persons concerned were convicted and fined. The average fine was about £24, but the seizure of notes and the imposition of costs brought the total average penalty up to about £62. There were no sentences of imprisonment.
In addition, there have been 12 cases which have been disposed of by payment of penalties without recourse to court proceedings, and a much larger number of cases in which sums of money have been seized from tourists in circumstances in which the loss of the money was thought to be an adequate penalty.

Mr. Mikardo: While appreciating the anxiety which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed to deal with this matter, may I ask if he does not think that the

comparatively small number of prosecutions indicates that we have not taken sufficient and vigorous enough action in seeking out the offenders, and that the comparatively light penalties—and they are light because these transactions run into thousands of pounds—indicate that offenders are not being sufficiently dealt with? Could the right hon. Gentleman get some of his officers to have a confidential chat with a few of the hall porters at the larger hotels on parts of the Mediterranean coast where they will learn a great deal about this matter?

Mr. Butler: In view of the particular interest and the anxiety in the minds of the public I have been checking up the powers which I possess to deal with the matter, and for the interest of the House they derive from Section 39 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, as applied by Section 24 of the Excise Transfer Order, 1909. Part III of the Fifth Schedule to the Exchange Control Act. 1947, lays it down that enactments relating to Customs shall apply in enforcing exchange control. Those are the powers and I shall certainly use them to the full. If they are not sufficient, then I must look at the matter again.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that many British tourists abroad, particularly in the South of France, are spending sums of foreign currency greatly exceeding the official allowance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. There is evidence that some British tourists are acquiring foreign currency by illegal means. As my answer to the hon. Member's previous Question indicates, a number of offenders have been detected and have had money seized or suffered other penalties. Other cases are still under investigation. I cannot state too clearly that such evasions are contrary to the best interests of the country.

Social Surveys

Mr. Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the staff employed on Social Surveys have been retained; and what further surveys are to be undertaken.

Mr. R. A. Butler: At 1st October, 1952, 57 staff remain, compared with a staff of


90 on 1st October, 1951. Further surveys will be confined to inquiries designed to give direct assistance to efficient and economical administration.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) what was the purpose of the Social Survey on the Parliament Past and Present Exhibition: and how much the survey cost;
(2) what action he is taking as a result of the conclusions reached in the Social Survey report on the "Parliament Past and Present" Exhibition.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): This Survey was undertaken in September, 1951, with a view to obtaining information as to the effectiveness of the Exhibition which it was thought would be helpful in the planning of the official exhibitions. Its cost was about £240. The answer to Question No. 40 is "None, Sir."

Mr. Erroll: As a result of no action being taken, can my hon. Friend say whether in future similar surveys are likely to be held or whether such surveys have been abandoned?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the future of such surveys I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today to Question No. 26 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Pianos (Tax)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the way in which exports of British-made pianos have fallen this year owing to the virtual closing down of the main overseas markets for these instruments; and if he will reduce the Purchase Tax on British-manufactured pianos sold in Britain, so as to enable the industry to restore and maintain its normal level of productivity and thus continue to provide employment for its skilled craftsmen.

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the unemployment in the pianoforte manufacturing industry and of the declining number of serviceable pianos in the country, he will now remove the Purchase Tax on them.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The rate of tax on pianos has been reduced from 66⅔ per

cent. to 33⅓ per cent. with effect from 22nd September. This halving of the tax was requested by the piano manufacturing industry to assist them in meeting their difficulties, and I hope it will. It is too early to gauge its full effect.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his timely decision has, in fact, already brought about some improvement in the condition of this valuable industry?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Debt Interest

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now estimate the increase in Government expenditure on debt interest in the year 1952–53, due to the rise in the Treasury Bill rate.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not yet prepared to add to what I said in the Budget debate and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said in the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Jay: As the right hon. Gentleman has not merely raised the interest rate b? 2 per cent., but has also increased the level on borrowing from the banks, would I be right in asking whether the increase in Government expenditure under this head must be well over £100 million a year?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to bait me with his own figures to give one of my own. I am not willing to give a figure at the present time since, quite frankly, I have not an exact figure to give. Directly I have one to give, I think it should be in the possession of the House. Meanwhile, I would advise the House not to accept the exaggerated statements of the right hon. Gentleman.

D Scheme (Furniture)

Mr. Albu: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet made a decision on the introduction of a D Scheme for Purchase Tax on furniture.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The trade has been made aware that it remains the intention of the Government to introduce a D Scheme for domestic furniture. Pending the outcome of discussions with the trade, I can make no further statement.

Mr. Albu: Is the Chancellor aware that there is very great anxiety in the trade particularly about the long time it has taken the Government to make up their minds on this matter and because during the intermediate period they are expecting the imposition of a heavy tax on furniture which will add considerably to the existing difficulties of the trade?

Mr. Butler: There is certainly no desire on the part of the Government to add to the difficulties of the trade. We discussed this matter during the Finance Bill and we have tried to keep the trade informed. Perhaps hon. Members will remember that the outline of a possible scheme was included in the Douglas Report which drew attention to the need of preserving quality while retaining a range of tax-free articles. That remains the general objective, and when discussions are concluded I may be able to say more, but I cannot at present.

New Coins (Design)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the incorporation of a Welsh symbol in the design of new coins.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The design of coins is a matter within the Royal Prerogative, and I understand that Her Majesty will be signifying Her pleasure in this matter before the end of the year. Meantime, I am authorised to inform the House that Her Majesty has decided that a Welsh emblem shall be included in the reverse designs of certain denominations of the new coinage.

Mr. Freeman: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, which will be welcomed and appreciated and will help to consolidate the unity of everybody in Wales, may I ask him if he can say when these coins are likely to be available?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give an exact date, and I am only too glad that any such action should give unity.

Mr. Bowen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any decision has been reached as to the nature of the emblem—the design?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman is interested—he will notice it is a leek—I shall be glad to attempt to show him a version of it.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say why the St. George's Cross is present on the silver threepenny bit?

Mr. Butler: I think that raises a separate issue. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put the question down.

Tax Allowances (Assessment Forms)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revert to the practice of making provision on Income Tax assessment forms for stating details of trade union superannuation contributions, funeral benefits and tools for which tax allowance can be claimed and obtained.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The information given on Income Tax forms about these allowances has not been curtailed. If the hon. Member will write to me explaining in what way he considers the present arrangements unsatisfactory, I will have the matter looked into.

Mr. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time there is no space at all on the forms for inserting the superannuation contributions of trade union members?

Mr. Butler: I shall pay attention to the point which the hon. Member has raised. If he would like to elaborate it and see me, I should be only too glad to meet him.

Coronation (Five-shilling Pieces)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state whether five-shilling pieces will be minted for the Coronation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. They will.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman also have made—as was done in connection with the Festival of Britain—sets of coins to be sold, including 5s. pieces? They yielded a very satisfactory revenue in 1951.

Mr. Butler: I will investigate that and let the hon. and gallant Member have an answer.

Black Market Eggs (Sales Returns)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what success has been achieved resulting from the in-


struction to the Inland Revenue Department to take a special interest in the returns from the sale of eggs in an effort to reduce the black market in eggs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that it would not be possible to furnish this information without a detailed investigation, which would not, I think, be justified.

Mr. Dodds: Cannot the Minister recollect that he gave an undertaking that this special instruction would be given early in July? Does he not think that there are important moral obligations even to the Treasury in this widespread black market, and will he not do something about it and give some undertaking?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member is confusing an undertaking of investigation, which has taken place, with his request in this Question for a special report on it. I do not think it would assist the inspectors in their efforts to have to divert their energies to compiling a special return on this special activity.

Mr. Dodds: When do we get some information as a result of the information given; or do we not get it?

Mr. Baldwin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the way to stop the black market is to have the so-called market prices put at the true value?

Mr. Hobson: Is the Minister aware that if he gets his right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture to allocate feedingstuffs for the poultry in proportion to the number of eggs returned to the packing stations the problem will be solved?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down to my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Cheque Payments (Receipts)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the cheques sent to the Accountant and Controller General at Worthing are in the first place acknowledged by a document which is stated not to be a receipt and is then followed several days later by a document containing exactly the same information, but which states itself to be a receipt; and if he will take steps to eliminate this duplication of effort.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The procedure described by my hon. Friend applies only in a small minority of cases, generally where the taxpayer does not send with the remittance the pay slip or other identification of the particular liability in respect of which the remittance is sent. In such cases it is thought courteous and efficient to tell the taxpayer at once that his remittance has been received. An acknowledgement is therefore sent and a formal receipt follows when the liability has been identified.

Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer is in fact—I am sorry to say it—totally inaccurate? Does he know of any firm in Britain which sends two communications to acknowledge one cheque?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know of no firm in Britain which will give a receipt in respect of a liability which has not yet been identified.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that I know of a number of cases where there is complete identification, and having regard to the fact that several years ago I had an entirely different explanation, would my hon. Friend look into this matter again, because it means a whole lot of clerks are wasting time?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no desire for anybody to waste their time, but I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the fact that he has had a different reply on this occasion indicates that we live in a progressive world.

"Women in Britain"

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the cost of producing the Central Office of Information document "Women in Britain"; and the purpose it is intended to serve.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The paper was produced for, and at the request of, the Foreign, Commonwealth Relations and Colonial Offices to enable their information officers abroad to answer inquiries received.

Mr. Johnson: May I have an answer to the other part of the Question, relating to the cost of producing the document?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. It is £77.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS (PRESERVATION)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on the Government's policy for the preservation of historic houses.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the report of the National Trust, what action he intends to take to prevent further destruction of buildings of architectural and historical importance.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to what was said by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in his answer to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) on 10th July, and in the Adjournment debate on 1st August. I hope to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Jay: If the Government cannot make up their minds on this matter after a year, would it not save time if they adopted the proposals of the previous Government?

Mr. Butler: Our main desire is to avoid following the example of the previous Government in every respect. Subject to that observation, if we were to find any grain of wisdom in the activities of the late Government we should certainly pick it up.

Mr. Dugdale: Although the right hon. Gentleman's answer may cause some amusement to his friends, this is a matter which we hope will not give rise to undue party controversy. There are enough without that. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members on both sides of the House are profoundly concerned at the very rapid destruction of these buildings and hope that some action will be taken?

Mr. Butler: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and that is why I referred to grains of wisdom which we do find occasionally and which I hope we may find in this matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Chancellor refrain from introducing party considerations into this matter, and may I further ask him how he reconciles his insulting reference to this side of the House with the Financial Secretary's answer to the debate on this subject when, in fact, he used very similar arguments to those used by myself a year before?

Mr. Butler: If it be a question of insulting references, I should not like to compete with the right hon. Gentleman.

HOUSING (REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to take to, arrest the danger of decay and disrepair to dwelling houses coming within the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to take to check the serious wastage of housing accommodation resulting from the inability of many owners of rent-restricted properties to-afford the expense of carrying out necessary repairs.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The problem of maintaining the important national asset represented by older houses is one of great importance. I cannot make any statement of broad policy at present.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend keep constantly in mind this important factor—that even the anticipated provision of 300,000 houses a year represents an annual replacement of just over 2 per cent.? Will he therefore have in mind that the successful solution of the housing problem can only be achieved by measures for preserving existing houses as well as providing new ones?

Mr. Wade: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter for great urgency? Does he agree that the deterioration of property resulting from disrepair is most serious during winter months, and another winter will be shortly upon us? In view of that, can he give some assurance that some action will be taken?

Mr. Macmillan: I agree that it is important, but I am afraid that I cannot deal with it in this Session.

Mr. Janner: When he is dealing with this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that some millions of pounds have been paid by tenants under the Rents Act in respect


of repairs which the landlords should have tackled but which they have neglected? Will he therefore see that some return will be given to the tenants of these houses should any steps be taken?

Mr. Macmillan: I shall try to keep all relevant considerations in mind.

ATOM BOMB TEST, AUSTRALIA

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the results of the atom bomb tests in Australia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I will certainly make a statement to the House upon this subject in the near future. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question down on the matter next week.

Mr. Bellenger: Might I ask the Prime Minister, when he does make that statement, to include in it also, besides the military aspect of this matter, what I might term the civilian prospects, in view of the very large sums of money invested by British taxpayers in this experiment?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that, more especially because very large sums of money were invested by the British taxpayer without the House of Commons having any information of the purposes in view.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman intends furnishing the House and the public with the information?

The Prime Minister: I intend to furnish the House with the information which I think is desirable after the experts have returned from Australia and I have had an opportunity of conversing with them.

Mr. Shinwell: Did not the right hon. Gentleman in his previous reply appear to indicate that it was improper not to furnish the House with the necessary information? I ask him in view of that insinuation, if he is prepared to give the House the information.

The Prime Minister: I think it was a striking episode.

WORLD PEACE

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made during the Parliamentary Recess for a high-level meeting by representatives of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and this country in a new bid for peace.

The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to say that any progress has been made since the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 16th June.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm in 1950 and 1951 for such a meeting, will the Prime Minister state what he himself has done in the meantime to make it a practical proposition, or does he not now think that his enthusiasm was misplaced before the two elections?

The Prime Minister: I should not like to deal with such a complicated issue as that in answer to a supplementary question.

PACIFIC DEFENCE PACT

Mr. Hale: asked the Prime Minister the nature of the requests made by the Government to the Australian, New Zealand, or United States Governments for participation of British representatives in the Pacific Defence Pact meetings; and what replies were received.

The Prime Minister: The communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the other Governments concerned are confidential. But the House will be aware from public statements that the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United States, the three signatories of the Treaty of 1951, considered at the first meeting of the A.N.Z.U.S. Council in August a request by Her Majesty's Government for the association of the United Kingdom with the Council and other organisations established under the Treaty. The three Governments then took the view that they would prefer to postpone for the present further consideration of any formal arrangements for this purpose. Here matters rest for the present.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the meekness and timidity with which he appears to acquiesce in this rebuff conflicts strangely with his philosophy on the election platform? Will he tell the House what will be the position of a British naval unit operating in the Pacific waters vis-à-vis a U.S.-Australasian command of whose operational directives they have no cognisance?

The Prime Minister: I thought I had made it quite clear that we have made our representations to the Governments concerned, and I am not yet in a position to announce any results.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been widely stated in the Press that the reason for this action is that the United States do not wish to be implicated in the defence of Malaya and Singapore, and will he confirm or deny these statements?

The Prime Minister: I do not see why I should confirm or deny a statement of a general character of that kind.

Mr. Paget: Is not this great lack of consideration shown to the obvious interests of this country the result of the meekness which the present Government have shown in their attitude to the Americans? The late Government was not treated like this by the Americans.

The Prime Minister: The late Government had publicly accepted the position that the United Kingdom Government could not be a party to the Anzus Treaty. They had not considered at the time of the change of Government whether, or if so how, the United Kingdom might be associated with the working of any machinery set up under the Treaty. This question had not then become a practical one, and the Treaty was not signed until September, 1951. The Labour Government had noted Article 8 of the Treaty which enables special relationships to be developed between the Treaty machinery and the other States.
It seems to me that this matter will not be advanced favourably at this time with our fellow members of the Commonwealth by vehement expressions of opinion in this House. We inherited a certain situation, and I have never concealed the fact that I regret the solution which has now for the present been reached.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has been

saying to the House is substantially what was stated by the Labour Government when this Treaty was made, and for which we were denounced by the present Foreign Secretary and other Members of the then Opposition? Are we to take it that on this and other matters the Prime Minister now gives the answer that the Government are merely following in the steps of the Labour Government which they denounced at the time?

The Prime Minister: Of course, it is one thing to do harm and another thing to get it undone.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he considers that the communications which have passed between this Government, the Dominion Governments and the United States Government are not matters which ought to be communicated to the public? Why are the people of this country not entitled to know what has taken place in this matter and what has passed between the Governments? Will he not consider publishing these dispatches as a White Paper or making them available in some other form?

The Prime Minister: I never heard of the demand that all communications passing between us and Commonwealth Governments or foreign Governments ought necessarily to be laid before the House. That never has occurred in any former time until this afternoon. I should not like to make a change at this moment of such far-reaching consequence. It would be a great mistake to interfere with the freedom of communications which take place. I am quite sure of this, that we should do well not to press this matter because the representatives of the Dominions are coming over here; we shall have opportunities of discussing these matters with them personally, and also the situation in the United States will be more clarified after a little time.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Water Supply Scheme, Thornbury

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why the Thornbury Rural District Council. Gloucestershire, have not yet received authority to proceed with their Southern and Central Water Supply Scheme for which approval in principle was given in June last.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This distribution scheme depends on the completion of major works at present in hand to provide water from Alderley, and on the delivery of pipes now on order.

Mr. Perkins: Does the Minister wish the council to go right ahead with this scheme now?

Mr. Macmillan: This is a scheme by which a number of smaller supplies will be linked to the major one, and therefore they cannot be linked until the major one is completed.

Bombed Cities (Reconstruction)

Mr. Foot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he will make a statement on the licences to be issued for reconstruction work in bombed cities during the remaining months of this year and for next year;
(2) to what extent steel is still the limiting factor on the number of licences to be issued for bombed cities.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The work carried out in the year 1951 in the blitzed cities generally was £3½ million. The work estimated to be carried out in 1952 amounts to about £4½ million. In the year 1953 there is likely to be about £2 million worth of work carried forward to be completed. I am not yet in a position to say what additional work will be authorised, or at the moment to authorise any new works, whether or not they require steel. Steel will, of course, continue to be a limiting factor so long as it is subject to allocation, but progress is being made in various forms of steel saving construction.

Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that the money that has been spent in the blitzed cities this year was almost entirely money which was allocated under licences given by the late Government and not under licences given by this Government? Is it not a fact that we have been waiting ever since October and the blitzed cities have been asking for a statement on new licences to be issued this year and next year, and we have not had a statement from the Government for a year? When do they think they are going to give that statement?

Mr. Macmillan: It is not the giving of licences but making it possible to carry out the work that matters. In this year £1 million more work has been done in the blitzed cities than in 1951.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whereas in the period of the Labour Government there was never any unemployment in the building industry in these blitzed cities, today in most of these blitzed cities unemployment is growing? If the Minister does not issue licences very soon there is going to be serious unemployment among the building workers in those cities.

Mr. Macmillan: That is a very generalised statement and shows how dangerous it is to try to lump into the same category all these different places with quite different conditions of employment and other things.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that when Members representing the blitzed towns ask him to do something more for those towns, they are speaking on behalf of all the political parties in the blitzed towns? Is he also aware that public sympathy with the condition of blitzed towns has been expressed recently in the Press up and down the country, and can he not do something to meet that wide demand?

Mr. Macmillan: I have done all I can. I have got £1 million more for 1952 than for 1951. I have got the steel, the labour and the materials. I have got £2 million for 1953, which is a carry-forward, and which is two-thirds of the whole of 1951. I will make a statement later on what we shall do further than that.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister appreciate that the rebuilding of the blitzed city of Portsmouth is going ahead twice as well now as it was under the Socialist Government?

TOXIC WEED SPRAYS (WILD LIFE)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will ensure that the Nature Conservancy will be represented as the conference to be held by the British Field Sports Society on 21st October to consider the effects of toxic weed sprays and insecticides on game birds and other wild life.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): No, Sir. The Nature Conservancy are, however, already in touch with the British Field Sports Society about the subject matter of the conference.

Mr. Hurd: As there is widespread anxiety about the effect on wild life of these toxic sprays which are so widely used, would it not be well for the Government's scientific organisation—the Nature Conservancy—to send observers to this conference so that they have first-hand information?

Mr. Molson: The Nature Conservancy were among the bodies invited by the British Field Sports Society to attend this conference; but as, with the sole exception of the Nature Conservancy, all those invited are voluntary bodies, it was obviously undesirable that the Conservancy should themselves be a party to the proceedings. The Conservancy, however, offered to discuss the subject matter of the conference, either before or after the conference, with such representatives as the British Field Sports Society might choose to appoint. This offer was accepted.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, HARROW

Mr. Bishop: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport if he has any statement to make about the railway disaster at Harrow last week.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Yes, Sir. At about 8.20 a.m. on Wednesday, 8th October, the 7.31 a.m. passenger train from Tring to Euston was just starting away from the up fast platform at Harrow and Wealdstone Station when it was struck at the rear by the 8.15 p.m. express passenger train from Perth to Euston which was travelling at high speed on the same line. The adjacent down fast line was fouled by the wreckage, and a few seconds later the 8.0 a.m. down express from Euston to Liverpool, which was hauled by two engines and was also travelling at speed, collided with it.
The destruction of rolling stock resulting from this double collision was altogether exceptional, and it was inevitable that the casualty list was very great, particularly as the up local train was crowded. I regret to say that 110 persons lost their lives, including the driver and fireman of the Perth express. In addition, 159 persons were injured, of whom 75 are still in hospital; I am glad to say that the great majority of them are making good progress towards recovery.
A formal inquiry will be opened by the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways at Euston tomorrow, Wednesday, 15th October, and it will be understood that I cannot make any further statement at present. The Railway Executive have announced that they will accept full legal liability for compensation and all such claims will receive full and early consideration.
The House will, I am sure, wish to be associated with an expression of very deep sympathy with the relatives and friends of the many who lost their lives in this disaster, and with those who were injured. I should like to pay tribute to everyone who participated with such unselfishness in the prolonged and distressing work of rescue, including the detachments of the United States Air Force who came so promptly to help us in our troubles.

Mr. Bishop: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. Will the inquiry which is to be held be wide enough in its scope to cover the general question of the safety devices used by the railways—or which could be used by the railways—in case of a human or mechanical failure in operation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I feel quite sure that the scope of the inquiry can be safely left in the very competent hands of my Chief Inspector of Accidents.

Mr. Monslow: Would the Minister now consider the universal adoption of the system of automatic train control? This has been a feature which has been related to the House on innumerable occasions, and I ask him that this should be implemented forthwith in the light of this tragic accident.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think we should be wise to await the results of the inquiry which, as I have said, opens tomorrow.

Mr. J. Freeman: Would the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that the people of Watford, who have suffered more grievously than any other community by this accident, would wish to be publicly associated with the tribute which he has paid to the work of rescue, which was quite remarkable, and not least to the help of the American Service men, which was given when it was most needed and which undoubtedly saved lives?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day — LICENSED PREMISES IN NEW TOWNS BILL

[FIRST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(TEMPORARY LICENSED PREMISES.)

(1) Proposals under section three of this Act may include provision whereby during such period (hereinafter referred to as "the interim period") as may be specified in the proposals, the next following subsection shall apply to any place specified in the proposals for the situation of licensed premises.

(2) While by virtue of proposals under section three of this Act which have been confirmed this subsection applies to any place, premises situated at that place shall not be treated for the purposes of section thirty-seven of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 (which relates to the qualification of premises for receiving justices' licences) as not being structurally adapted to the class of licence which is required by reason only of the materials of which the premises are constructed or to be constructed or of the fact that the premises were constructed or have been used for other purposes; but—

(a) nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring justices to grant an application for the grant of a licence for, or for a removal to, premises situated at the said place if in the opinion of the justices the premises are not proper to be used for the purpose,
(b) where the justices grant such an application by virtue of this subsection they shall certify that they have so granted the application and the licence shall on the expiration of the interim period become void unless previously removed, otherwise than by virtue of this subsection, to other premises at the same place or removed to premises at a different place.

(3) Where proposals under section three of this Act include such provision as is authorised by subsection (1) of this section, proposals of the committee for other places at which licensed premises should be established may include provision whereby they shall not have effect until the expiration of the interim period or such earlier date as the committee may from time to time determine.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with temporary licensed premises Right hon. and hon.

Members who were on the Committee will remember that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) proposed a new Clause during the Committee stage to deal with this problem. The Clause which he put forward was based to some extent on Section 9 of the Licensing Planning Act of 1945. The main point of his Clause was that, where a committee under the Bill made proposals for temporary licensed premises, the requirements of Sections 37 and 38 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act of 1910—about the number of rooms and the annual value of the licensed premises and the requirement that the must be structurally adapted to the class of licence for which they were required—would not apply to temporary premises constructed or adapted in pursuance of the committee's proposal.
The argument for the new Clause was that, as experience since the war in war-damaged areas and areas of new building has shown, it is often impossible, with existing restrictions on building, to get a building licensed for permanent licensed premises, but satisfactory temporary premises can often be provided. I think I should be putting forward the general view of the Committee in saying that they were not impressed by the necessity to be saved from the provisions of the Sections with regard to rateable value or number of rooms. The Committee thought that any premises ought to comply with that.
There was another aspect of the matter, which was developed by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and which I think impressed the Committee and created a general interest in the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman said—and it appears at pages 468 and 469 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings—that he had had a problem of this sort within his personal knowledge. I should like to quote some of his words which raised the point as it appeared to him. He said:
In making their application to the magistrates the brewers said, in effect, 'We have managed to buy some ships' timbers in considerable quantity and we propose, if the local planning authority and your worships will agree, to erect a temporary building.' They produced an elevation, which I have no doubt owed a little to the artistic skill of someone in an architect's office. It showed a presentable building constructed of temporary materials of the kind I have mentioned. They said that they hoped to get permission from the local planning authority to use materials


which would justify it being acknowledged only as a temporary expedient. They hoped that that would comply with the requirements of the justices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 31st July, 1952; c. 469.]
This is a point on which there was no party division in the Committee, and I think I am interpreting the feeling of the Committee as a whole when I say that the point made by the right hon. Gentleman aroused interest and was felt to be one which was worthy of solution. Some Members of the Committee opposed the proposed Clause on the ground that it would open the door to the construction or use of unsuitable premises, and that even if it were necessary to use temporary materials or to adapt premises for temporary use as a licensed house, it should never be necessary to fall below the standards for the number of rooms and rateable values.
I was asked from all sides of the Committee to consider whether I could not find certain safeguards—as, I think, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) said, as reported in column 478, when, by a wily interjection in the middle of my remarks, he secured the opportunity to make a speech. He said:
What we are chiefly concerned about is that in this new Clause we have not got sufficient safeguards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 31st July, 1952; c. 478.]
That is what I have tried to deal with in the Clause now before the House.
As I said, the only point which I think all the Committee thought required consideration was that premises made of temporary materials or adapted from some other use might not be regarded by the licensing bench, or by some licensing benches, as being "structurally adapted to the class of licence which is required" on a strict interpretation of those words; and they wanted some provision made to meet that problem. That is what I promised to do.
This Clause is, accordingly, limited to dealing with the points I have just mentioned. It is similar to the Clause of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove, except that in the first part of subsection (2), instead of providing for the suspension of the requirements of Section 37 of the Act of 1910, the Clause provides that such premises shall not be treated for the purposes of that Section

as not being structurally adapted to the class of licence which is required by reason only of the materials
used—that was the right hon. Gentleman's point—
or of the fact that the premises were constructed … for other purposes
and that was a point which was raised in an interesting way, if I may say so, by the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) in dealing with the question of an adapted mansion house.
That is what I have tried to deal with, and I hope that in its modified form the new Clause will meet the practical points mentioned in the debate in Committee without providing any ground for the fears which were expressed about opening the door to the use of unsuitable premises. I believe that the question of temporary licensed premises will be under the effective control of the committees to be set up under the Bill.
If hon. Members will look at the new Clause, perhaps I may briefly indicate its effect. Subsection (1) enables a committee to include in proposals under Clause 3 provision for temporary premises—and I ask the House to note this point—for a specified period. This would be open to objection and subject to confirmation in the same way as any other proposal. Subsection (2) provides that premises to which a provision for temporary premises applies shall not be treated for the purpose of Section 37 of the Act as not being structurally adapted by reason only of the materials used or by reason of the original purpose of the premises; and that is a point I have already mentioned.
I want the House to note that it goes on to provide that the licensing justices may nevertheless refuse a licence if in their opinion
the premises are not proper to be used for the purpose.
That is to say, the licensing justices have the final word as to whether the premises should be used for the purpose of a licensed house.
Paragraph (b) of the subsection provides for the justices to certify the fact when they grant an application under the subsection, and goes on to provide—and I ask the House again to note this point—that at the end of the specified


period the licence for the temporary premises will become void unless previously removed to permanent premises on the same site or to temporary or permanent premises at another site.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: The period is left to the magistrates to fix without any limit in the Section to the period?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes. It is for the justices to decide.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It could be for quite a long time if the magistrates so desired. There is no limit at all.

3.45 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I thought one could trust the experience and common sense of the magistrates. If there were strong feeling on that point. I should, of course, be prepared to consider it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The whole point is that these are premises of a temporary character relieved of the prerequisites usually required for that sort of premises. They are being departed from entirely, so that the absence of some restraint on the period is rather important.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I confess that I thought one could trust the licensing justices: and, of course, one previously has the committee, which introduces the Development Corporation. I thought they could be trusted to deal with that point There is no controversy here, and I want the hon. and learned Gentleman to understand that what I have tried to do—whether I have succeeded or not—is to interpret the feeling which existed in dealing with the problem. If it were felt that the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman was a serious point, I should be very glad to consider it. I have fully seized the point and I treat it with respect.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I was merely sounding a note of caution. As this was admitted to be a temporary building, some limit might have to be considered and placed upon it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have noted the point and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing it to the attention of the House so thoroughly.
Of course, it follows from what I was saying that if the licence is removed to

permanent premises, those premises would be subject in full to the requirements of Section 37 or 38 of the Act of 1910.
The third subsection of the Clause has effect so that where a committee proposes permanent premises on another site in substitution for temporary premises, they may provide that the proposal is not to take effect until the provision for the temporary premises expires. That is simply a question of tidying up.
I hope those who were Members of the Committee will believe that I have tried to meet the points put up during the debate. I support the Clause which I have brought before the House. I think it will deal usefully with the subject and might be for the benefit of the new towns in certain circumstances. As I said in Committee, I have been very anxious to learn the general view and to interpret it, and I hope the House will understand that it is in furtherance of the attitude which I took in Committee that I am following the same line today. I have stated my view, but I propose to leave those hon. Members on my side of the House entirely free. Indeed, I hope this will be a free vote of the House, because it is a matter which I believe to be completely beyond any controversy and one in which we should like to have the vote recorded in that way.

Mr. Ede: We are debating today under duress, and we cannot express ourselves as freely or with as much detail as we should like to do in all the circumstances. Therefore, I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that, if my remarks are few, that is in the general interest of the debate. I should like to thank him for the way in which he has met the points that I raised in a previous debate and for not acceding to the request of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) that there should be a complete removal of the restrictions that are placed on these premises by the existing law of the land.
I share to some extent the apprehension that was expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) with regard to the fact that there is no time limit on this proposal. A predecessor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman at


the Home Office, Sir William Harcourt, once had his attention drawn to the fact that it is the sheriff who fixes the date of execution; and a sheriff who had a pal who had become liable to capital punishment fixed the date 100 years hence. But Sir William Harcourt's remark was that he had no doubt civilisation would deal with that.
I cannot help thinking that there could be very unreasonable use of this power, and that temporary buildings may call for some action. I am not certain that it would not be a good thing to put in some limit—say, 10 years—as the maximum that could be granted. I should hope that in most cases it would be less, because anyone who has been associated with local government knows the way in which temporary buildings do exist for a very long time. I suggest that possibly in another place, if the House agrees to this new Clause, it may be as well to consider putting in some limit.
I am quite sure that I speak for all those who were Members of the Committee—of both sides of the Committee—when I say that we do not desire this provision to be used except where no other provision is possible. The last thing we want to see, I am quite certain, is the growing up in new towns of any form of construction, particularly of licensed premises, that may lead to the place steadily degenerating as time goes on. On the other hand, we have to face the fact that these new towns may encounter considerable difficulties in the way of meeting this sort of provision.
I welcome particularly the provision that a building that is otherwise suitable ought not to be ruled out merely because it was constructed for some other purpose, and that the possibility of adapting some of the large houses that may very well become derelict so far as letting capacity is concerned, owing to the construction of the new towns, may be considered for some of these premises.
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt quite adequately with the points I raised in Committee. I did not raise this question. My hon. and learned Friend did so, with his great capacity for realising legal niceties that occasionally confront laymen like myself after we think a thing a reasonable proposition; but I ask the right hon. and

learned Gentleman if it would not be a wise safeguard to put some limit on the period for which the licensing justices may use this.
Of course, it will require not only the approval of the licensing justices. Temporary buildings or buildings constructed of temporary materials will require also the consent of the planning authority and. I think, also of the local sanitary authority. I think local byelaws will probably come in, generally speaking. I should hope that, although we have these additional safeguards, we might consider putting into this Measure some reasonable limitations on the power of the licensing justices.
I am bound to say that I do not think this matter is one on which we need spend much time today, as there are other more important matters we have to get through in the time most arbitrarily and tyrannically fixed, but I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he has met us, and particularly for not falling for the blandishments of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I should like to join in thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for producing a new Clause which, I think, is a tribute to the joint work of Members on both sides of the Committee. I accept what has been said now, that my original new Clause was too widely drawn. It was as a result of the observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that I realised, after listening to the arguments, that my original new Clause was wider than was desirable, and I was much impressed by the remark of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the real point here was the question of the premises being structurally adapted, and that there was not enough force certainly in the arguments as to number of rooms and rateable value as to justify including them in a new Clause.
It is only as a result of the deliberation of all of us on both sides of the Committee that we have arrived at what I believe now to be a Clause which meets the requirements of the situation. It is undoubted that there will be difficulties in the immediate future in the new towns in providing the licensed premises that are necessary, and, of course, the first


thing we all want to ensure is that licensed premises are not constructed in a way which will in any way prejudice the ordinary housing programme. It is certainly desirable that traditional materials for houses should first be made available for houses and that there should be freedom to allow licensed premises to be constructed out of materials of a non-traditional nature. I think that really that is as far as this new Clause goes.
The safeguards which are required by the Licensing Act, 1910, as to the size and rateable value of the premises will, of course, remain part of the general law, and therefore the situation is, I think, met by the new Clause which my right hon. and learned Friend has moved. I rather agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) said about some form of limitation in the interim period. Indeed, my original new Clause, curiously enough, did cover that point to some extent. It was that there should be an interim period which should be one as might be specified in the proposals—

Mr. Leslie Hale: To what column is the hon. and learned Gentleman referring?

Mr. Marlowe: Column 461. I was paraphrasing the terms of my new Clause, but this is the way it was put:
Proposals under section three of this Act may include provision whereby during such period (hereinafter referred to as 'the interim period') as may be specified in the proposals, the next following subsection shall apply …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 31st July, 1952; c. 461.]
The effect of this was to enable suggestions to be made as to what was an appropriate length for the interim period. In that respect at least I think I can claim that my original Clause had one aspect which was an improvement on this proposed new Clause.
4.0 p.m.
My original draft sought to impose some limitation of time, because there should be some assurance that this will not go on indefinitely. Whether it is desirable to do it in the form suggested by the right hon. Member for South Shields, with a fixed period of 10 years, is questionable. Perhaps another method could be to have re-certification annually or tri-annually, or something of that kind We all agree that an interim period is

desirable, and I am sure there should be no difficulty in finding words to meet that.
I should like to repeat my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend for meeting the Committee on this matter. I finish as I began, by saying that this shows the value of a Committee of this kind, when the two sides, representing different points of view, are able to get together and eventually produce something which meets the occasion.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am sure the Home Secretary desires to take a judicial view of this matter. I am not complaining for a moment that this new Clause was not intended in all respects to cover the points raised in Committee, and I am certain the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it would do so. I think I am right in saying that probably the reason no limit is inserted is because that point was never raised. It is true as the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) said, that he adumbrated a sort of interim period, but there was no suggestion of any particular period and I rather think that that is probably why no period appears now.
Let me say at once that I am not questioning the capacity or the judgment of the magistrates to deal with the matter, and I am also taking into consideration the various safeguards that there may be, such as the consideration of the premises by the planning committee and the sanitary authority. I do not, however, think that is relevant to the question of a limit of time being imposed. Why I said I was sure the Home Secretary would apply a judicial view to the matter was because, as I think he will agree, and as is shown by the marginal note, this is a temporary matter; the whole purpose of it is temporary.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also agree, I think, that we are hero departing from a strict standard; this case will in fact create an anomaly. Ordinarily the standard as to licensed premises has to conform with certain established practices and requirements, and but for the fact that this is a new towns matter this provision would never have been tolerated for one instance. It is, therefore, necessary to have such safeguards as are sensible and practicable.
When seeking to impose a limit on the licence, it might be difficult to say, "This


temporary licence shall exist for 12 months, and that is the end of it, "because the situation at the end of the 12 months may not be such as to make it convenient that the licence should expire. While I see that, it does not prevent a limit from being made, because provision can be made for the matter to be looked at again, and, where it is proved desirable, for a further period to be granted. The advantage is that in a temporary matter, such as there is here, the position can be reviewed after a certain time, and I should have thought that the interim period ought not to be too long. At the moment we cannot say what the temporary period should be without examining the matter more closely and fully, but I should have thought that the period ought not to be too long.
I think the Home Secretary might look at this again. I am not carping about it. This is not a party matter. My remarks are purely precautionary. I think it might be examined again to see that those who have the premises and those who have the power to grant the licences have some sense of the urgency in regard to the matter, because the sooner these premises conform to the strict standards essential to licensed premises, the better.
With a review of this kind we should create a situation in which there would be some sense of urgency, and thus get as soon as possible the sort of building which in normal circumstances we would have in any case. There ought to be some safeguard, but without a limitation there is none. If a limitation is stated there is a safeguard, still leaving discretion in the hands of the magistrates to say from time to time whether the temporary premises should continue or whether they ought to stop. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at that very carefully.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: I do not think that the Home Secretary has taken full account of the many objections raised in Committee on more than one point. I, personally, would not object to the provision in the new Clause for the adaptation of existing premises. I have seen such adaptations of licensed premises which have taken place in certain areas since the

war, when building difficulties were prevalent, and for the most part those adaptations were to structurally sound premises which could be made to conform to decent building practice. Those were buildings which were old, but very well built and very strong.
When building premises of temporary materials for use as licensed premises we are dealing with something entirely different. Let us examine what has been done in many areas in the erection of buildings made of materials which might be called temporary, where there is a patchwork arrangement. Such buildings soon deteriorate, and attempts are made to make them fit enough to continue in use. All kinds of buildings are being erected of temporary materials on many housing estates throughout the country, and almost every one is completely unsatisfactory.
The difficulty I find with the broad provisions of this new Clause for providing temporary premises is that, once temporary buildings have been erected and put to a certain use, it is very difficult to get rid of them. We all know of premises reputed to be temporary, but which have been in use for very many years. In Committee I quoted a case, which I know is known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, of a school provided in 1898, made of temporary materials, patched up with all kinds of materials since that date and it is still in use. Many of us know of church halls, and similar places, centres of community life on housing estates, built of similarly unsatisfactory materials which, while I admit they serve a very useful purpose, it is very difficult to get rid of because they serve the community by having established a proper use for what might be called an improper building.
Therefore, I see the danger of this, freedom to use temporary materials and to erect temporary premises in the new towns for use as licensed premises. We are trying to lay down better standards, of building and of amenities of all kinds in the new planning. We are trying to attract to the new towns people who will find their homes and work there, together with the amenities which they need. This proposal will debase these standards. I hold very strongly to this view which has been forced upon me by my own experience of temporary


buildings in the conditions which I have described. We know that the temporary homes erected since the end of the war, authorised by Parliament and upon which public money has been spent, were given a limited life when they were first erected. We now realise that the term of years laid down for those temporary homes will be exceeded by many years. These premises, whatever may be their condition, will continue to exist because of the need for homes.
More than one hon. Member expressed this view when we were considering this matter in Committee, and although I am still strongly opposed to the provision of temporary premises, I admit that there is a case for the adaptation of premises which are structurally sound and strong for this purpose. I have seen adaptations which served a very useful purpose and which did not have the objections which I have attempted to make known this afternoon.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take serious note of the strong objections that were raised in Committee in connection with the provision of temporary premises and will take account of the feelings that we all have, that we do not want to debase or to depress standards, especially in the new towns, where we have set out to obtain the highest possible standards in planning amenities and buildings.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to say one thing, with the leave of the House. I shall, of course, be very glad to consider the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), which was also taken up by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Before the Bill goes to another place, I shall see whether something can be done to meet that point. I should like to consider it with the Licensing Department of the Home Office before I give any undertaking, but I promise that I will consider it and, if it is a practical matter, do my best to meet this point.

Mr. Ede: The suggestion was made that there might be an annual renewal. May I say that I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do something about this matter? I hope that he will do it in the form of a fixed period of years. If these temporary premises are to be subject to annual renewal, it may

frighten people from making the provision at all, and, after all, it is only to be used in circumstances where no other provision is practicable. I think that a short, fixed term of years would enable that to be done, whereas if this were a matter subject to annual renewal by annual certificate it might frighten people from making a start.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will gladly consider that point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(TIED HOUSES PROHIBITED IN NEW TOWNS.)

(1) In every premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor in any new town it shall be deemed a condition of the licence that there shall be provided such kinds and brands of the intoxicating liquors for the sale of which the premises are licensed and such kinds and brands of mineral waters and other beverages as may be reasonably required by the customers, and the licensing justices may refuse to renew a licence on the grounds that the holder thereof has persistently and unreasonably refused to supply such kinds and brands of intoxicating liquor, mineral waters or beverages aforesaid at a reasonable price. If the justices so refuse to renew a licence they shall be deemed to have refused it on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person either directly or indirectly in regard to any new town

(a) to enter or attempt to enter into any agreement with the holder of a justices' licence or an occasional licence therein with any person intending to apply for the grant or renewal of any such licence or with any person having the control or management of licensed premises therein the purpose or effect whereof is the granting of a monopoly to or the favouring of the sale, supply or use of any brands of intoxicating liquor, mineral waters or other articles whatsoever intended for sale, supply or use on licensed premises which are manufactured or supplied by such person or by any other person, or the purpose or effect whereof is the restriction of the sale, supply or use on any licensed premises therein of any brands of intoxicating liquor, mineral waters or other articles aforesaid:
(b) to induce or attempt to induce by any means whatsoever any holder of a justices' licence or an occasional licence therein any person intending to apply for the grant or renewal of any such licence or any person having the control or management of the licensed premises therein to enter into such agreement as aforesaid to grant such monopoly to favour such sale, supply or use or to restrict such sale, supply or use as aforesaid:


(c) to make it a condition of the offer, grant or renewal of any tenancy of licensed premises therein or of any contract of service relating to the control or management of licensed premises therein that the tenant, proposed tenant, manager or controller or proposed manager or controller should enter into such agreement as aforesaid or should grant such monopoly or should favour such sale, supply or use or should restrict such sale, supply or use as aforesaid;
(d) to enter into any agreement with any person the purpose or effect whereof is to induce or attempt to induce any holder of a justices' licence or of an occasional licence therein any person intending to apply for the grant or renewal of any such licence or any person having the management or control of licensed premises thereto to enter into such agreement as aforesaid or to grant such monopoly or to favour such sale, supply or use or to restrict such sale, supply or use as aforesaid.

(3) Any such agreement whether made or entered into before or after the passing of this Act shall be void and unenforceable.

(4) In this section the word "agreement" shall include any contract, term, condition, covenant or promise whether oral, written or by deed and whether or not (apart from the provisions of this section) it would be enforceable in law or equity.

(5) If after the passing of this Act any brewer, distiller or other person enters into any such agreement he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction for a first offence to a fine of one hundred pounds and for any subsequent offence to a fine of five hundred pounds.

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was opposing the Licensing Act, 1948, he said something which, if in fact it had been applicable to that Measure, would, I think, have brought a great number of my hon. Friends into the Lobby with him. He said:
… it seeks to deprive a large section of the people of this country of what should be their inalienable heritage, the right of choosing their own draught beer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1043.]
The Clause which I am moving is a much more modest one. It atempts to give a very small section of the people of this country what is their inalienable heritage. It is an attempt to prevent a few people from being deprived of it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The object of the Clause, which stands in the

names of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), myself and other hon. Members, is to do away with the tied house. We suggest that we should do away with it as an experiment in the new towns.
In the opinion, I think, of every hon. Member on this side of the House, this is a very evil system, and the only defence of it which is put forward by right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that it is really impossible to sell drink without it. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to say to his friends the brewers that their profits ought not to be so dependent upon their connection with one great political party of the State. They should, like other business men, be prepared to face competition.
After all, in the United States of America they would not allow anything of this sort, and the capitalists in the U.S.A. are at least as experienced as any of the capitalist friends who are available to advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Indeed, in the U.S.A. it is one of the evils which is prohibited by law. Anyone who studies the social history of that country knows that this has not led to a universal cessation of drinking.
The new Clause which I am moving is drawn from a Bill which I had the honour to introduce but the misfortune, on a number of occasions, never to move. It is, as it were, a pilot scheme. I would be wrong if I said that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is committed to such a revision for the whole country, but he, like me, thinks that it might be a good thing to experiment in the now towns. This Bill, which has been before the public for a long time, is criticised in identical terms. That is one of the most interesting features of this Bill—the identity with which people, whom we are assured never communicate with each other, speak on all questions that have to do with the licensed trade. This criticism is identical by three sets of people: by the brewers, by certain of the licensed victuallers and by the Conservative Party.
The brewers, one has no doubt, have every reason for their opposition. The opposition of the licensed victuallers is, at first sight, a little more difficult to see. If the right hon. Gentlemen opposite read—and I commend it to them, not only for


its racing tips, for which I understand it is second only to the "Daily Worker," but for its general information—the "Morning Advertiser," the publicans' newspaper, they will see that in fact the Licensed Victuallers' Associations are in the pay of the brewers. It is difficult sometimes to get the actual figures. If one looks at the "Morning Advertiser" of 23rd July, 1952, one sees that the Aylesbury and District Licensed Victuallers' Association, a small body with only 152 members, got £3,000 a year from the brewers.
The question that every hon. Member on this side of the House must ask is: If 152 licensed victuallers in Aylesbury can get £3,000 from the breweries for passing a resolution condemning the free house, how much is got by those in the House of Commons who are in a position to implement the attitude taken by the brewers? Another question that we might ask is: If the brewers are so stupid as to waste £3,000 of their shareholders' money on 152 publicans in Aylesbury and not pay anything to the fount of authority, are they not unfit to run public houses?
The question of the tied house is the touchstone of the good intentions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Like other hon. Members, he will probably have taken a passing glance at the manifesto on which he was elected. He may remember the passage dealing with monopolies:
We believe in the necessity for reducing to the minimum possible all restrictive practices on both sides of industry and we shall rely on a greatly strengthened Monopolies Commission to seek, and enable Parliament to correct, any operations in restraint of trade.
What could be a greater operation in restraint of trade than a tied house the licence of which is restricted to people who sell only one class of commodity?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been in some difficulty. Up to now none of his policy as outlined in the King's Speech has been carried through. From a purely party point of view, this would surely be a good opportunity to carry through just one portion of one of the things which were mentioned in the King's Speech. The real opposition to the Licensing Act, 1949, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well, was not that the brewers were opposed to State control but that they were opposed to the abolition of the tied house.
What are the evils that we are trying to eliminate? First, injustice to the small men, something which ought to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite even when they are not conducting an election. I have previously quoted the perfunctory way in which the dismissal of licensees is treated. At the same time as the newspapers were full of a terrible injustice to someone who owned a place called "Briar Patch," licensees in Sheffield were being flung out wholesale. Yet one had to look at the third page of the "Daily Express" just to find this little item:
Landlord Must Go. A sheriff's officer will today eject Mr. Isaac Hampton, licensee, from the Lodge Inn, Spital Hill, Sheffield. He is one of four tenants who refused to go when 29 were sacked by the brewery.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has often repeated this misconstruction of the facts. Is he aware that Mr. Isaac Hampton was removed because he had twice been caught watering his beer?

Mr. Bing: I do not know in which brewery company the hon. and learned Gentleman has any interest, but I can tell him that that is technically a highly difficult task. I propose later to speak of analyses of certain beers which I have had made by the public analyst, and from that hon. Members will see that anyone dismissed for watering his beer ought really to have been promoted to a high position in some chemical establishment for achieving what amounts practically to the splitting of the atom. Were the remainder of the 29 licensees caught watering their beer?

Mr. Marlowe: That allegation is not so easy to deal with, for no one has been able to trace the 29 of whom the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks.

Mr. Bing: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman care to write to the "Daily Express" pointing out that its news is incorrect and that it is doing an injustice to the brewery, in order to see whether the "Daily Express" can justify what it published? The date of the report was 3rd March, 1949.
What is the usual defence given, not by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but by someone who is far more skilled in defending the brewers, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant)? His argument is exactly the same as that


of the fraudulent share pusher. He says, as does the fraudulent share pusher when he is caught, "Why should this fellow object to taking these shares? Heaps of other people would have bought them if he had not." He says, in other words that there are plenty of other mugs to take on the job and, therefore, it must be all right. If he had had anything like the letters I have had from licensees throughout the country, he would know that this is a small but very genuine matter of the exploitation of a small man who has extended the hand of kindness and help in time of need to many people both in this House and outside it.
The second argument against the tied house is merely that it provides bad service. Everybody knows of the inquiry which was made by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in the Royal Borough of Kensington. That was some time ago, and conditions have improved since. There was an inquiry in Bath in 1950 which showed that out of 156 public houses, 29 were re-selling drippings and overspill from glasses, without even bothering to use a utilisator to filter the beer, 64 had no means of sterilising glasses, 56 had no constant hot water, 18 had insufficient ventilation and six had no toilet accommodation. It was said that the general conditions in Bath were no worse than those anywhere else.
The next point is that they deny the people things which the ordinary person wants. Let us take the question of cider. There is no tax on cider, but in some mysterious way every time the price of beer has gone up the price of cider has also gone up. Even the licensees who are paid such large sums by the brewers cannot avoid protesting. I refer the Home Secretary to the "Morning Advertiser" of 9th July, 1952. In reporting a meeting of the Maidstone and Mid-Kent Licensed Victuallers' Association, it said:
It was said that the brewery had decided to increase the price because it found that one of its houses sold nearly all cider but very little beer.
The reason for putting up the price of cider was to prevent people from buying cider.

Mr. Robert Boothby: Why not?

Mr. Bing: We all congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) upon being one of the few honest Conservatives in the House of Commons. His interruption was typical of the honesty of his approach. The Report goes on:
The tenants, however, had been obtaining this drink from another company which was very popular in the district.
What a terrible offence!
A deputation of tenants explained this to the brewery. The brewery had told the cider company that they could continue to supply the tenants, provided the brewery was given so much for every gallon supplied.
This is rather like protection money which is collected in other ways. Yet this is the system which, in the name of liberty and doing down the monopolies, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is preparing to foist on the new towns
It is the same with wine. I have here a letter—I shall not give the name of the writer because it might prevent his getting other trade; judging by the agencies which he holds he must be one of the best-known wine merchants in the City of London—which says that a traveller has been told that from 10s. to 30s. per dozen more must be paid as a royalty if he supplies any houses in the Midlands or on the East coast.
4.30 p.m.
Now, for the benefit particularly of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hove, may I come to the question which I think is the most serious matter in regard to the tied house question, and one which I have not myself liked to raise hitherto, because I have not had or been able to get a sufficient analysis to prove my case. I am fortunate now in having a full report from a public analyst, and I am in a position to give the Committee and the hon. and learned Member for Hove the figures which he ought to have obtained a long time ago if he had gone into this question.
Let me say, first of all, to the hon. and learned Member for Hove that the tied house system is used to cheat the public by selling short measure. I will prove it to him in a moment. Secondly, it is used to defraud the Revenue by weakening and watering the beer. This is not done by an individual licensee but by whole brewery concerns, some of the


greatest names in the country, and this selling of watered beer by the brewery companies means that they are taking for themselves the money for the extra duty.
Since the hon. and learned Member for Hove did me the honour to interrupt me, let me read from an article which he himself wrote very appropriately in a journal whose name is "Property." He said:
… the agricultural labourer in the remoter parts …"—
he was defending the tied house system—
… usually wants the beer he gets. Thus he gets the beer he wants.
There are great differences between beer. The advantage of the tied house system is to enable the more dishonest brewer—because there are degrees of honesty among brewers—to secure an outlet and prevent anyone from selling better beer anywhere around. This is well-known, because an analysis was made in Kent in 1951. I have here the report of Mr. Strugnell, and it shows that the gravities of beer—that is what tax is paid on—varied very considerably, by as much as nine or 10 degrees.
Unfortunately Mr. Strugnell, for reasons of delicacy, did not in his report see fit to give the names of the firms who were doing these sorts of things. I am not under any similar inhibition. I had analysed by a public analyst—I suppose one of the best-known analysts in the country—five brands of beer, Watney's, Meux's, Charrington's, Bar-clay's, and Taylor Walker's.
I chose in each case the same beer, pale ale; I chose in each case a bottle which was brewery bottled so that there could be no question that it was a dishonest publican who watered it; I chose a half-pint bottle in each case and I paid in each case for it at the public bar. The price varied between 9½d. and 10d. and, for the information of the hon. and learned Member for Hove, I bought it all in the area between Great Portland Street and the Charing Cross Road. Only one of those houses saw fit even to give full measure to the public, and that was Taylor Walker's. As to the other brewers, Barclay's Brewery, by selling short measure, were making 15s. a barrel and Meux's were making 13s. a barrel.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, who takes a great interest in the licensing question, will remember that in April, 1950, in order to get a better beer, the brewers

gave a pledge to Sir Stafford Cripps, then Chancellor the Exchequer, and this is what Sir Stafford said at the time:
The brewers have given an assurance that the gravities of all beers will be increased by three degrees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th April. 1950; Vol. 474, c. 71.]
Because of a certain unfamiliarity with the milieu with which he was dealing, Sir Stafford Cripps may not have put upon the brewer's promise the value that some others of us would have put who know the brewers better.
In fact, the beers have been watered to quite a fantastic degree. Barclay's India pale ale only exceeds by 6 of 1 per cent. of alcohol the strength of beer which was permitted in the United States of America during prohibition. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), who is President of the Band of Hope, is not here to hear just what type of beer we are dealing with.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) is taking quite a new view of the brewers.

Mr. Bing: That may be so. Of these five beers, all of them except Charring-ton's were below average original gravity, which is 33 degrees. I do not know what the original gravity of bottled pale ale ought to be, but there is one hon. Gentleman here who does know, the senior member of the Brewers' Society Parliamentary Committee, the hon. Member for Wokingham. What does he say it ought to be? The figure that is given in the "Brewers' Almanac" is 55 degrees. That is supposed to be the pre-war strength of beer. I do not know whether that is correct, but perhaps the hon. Member will tell us what the original gravity of beer ought to be. I will give way if he likes.

Mr. Peter Remnant: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not mix up original gravity and standard gravity.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman is confused in a way which one would not expect from one who is so familiar with brewery matters. The original gravity of beer is a matter which is determined by analysis and depends upon the amount of material put into the beer. Does the hon. Gentleman know the original gravity of his beers or does he not?

Mr. Remnant: I do not want to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman's story, which is most amusing, but the standard gravity of 1,055 degrees was a gravity to which beers were reduced before the war by the Excise for the purpose of imposing the duty.

Mr. Bing: If the hon. Member will look at page 119 of the "Brewers' Almanac," he will see set out there a list of beers and a list of gravities which it is suggested they should go up to, and the gravity for pale ale is 55. The "Brewers' Almanac" may be mistaken, but it is for the hon. Member, who is a member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society, publicly to tell us if it is mistaken, and it is also for him to tell us what is the right figure. If he does not know the right figure, may I put one other point to him? May I suggest to him that he and I should go out together and get a bottle of beer made by his own firm from one of his tied houses, seal it up together and send it to an analyst, on whom we can no doubt agree? If we do that, will he agree to have the result published?
This is a serious matter. It is a fraud on the Revenue. This is selling to the public water, and charging them the duty and putting it into their own pockets instead of handing it back to the State. This is what is being down. If the duty were 55 degrees—I do not know whether that is the right figure—it would be £16 1s. a gallon. On the stuff Meux' s and Barclay's are selling, they pay only £7 15s. 4d. On the stuff that Taylor Walker's sell, they are paying only £8 8s. 7½d. On the stuff that Charrington' s are selling, they are at least paying £10 1s. 9d. Look at it in this way. A Meux' s or Barclay's house is making 20 per cent. more profit—23 per cent. to be accurate—on weaker beer, because they do not pay so much duty per barrel.
That is the case which I put up on the proposed new Clause. I want to urge it on the House once again. I suggest that this is a test of the good faith of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Are we to have any word from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he replies, to tell us that he will have the receptacles measured in which beer is sold by the people who have been pressing him to pass this Measure? Are the public to get any quid pro quo? Are they to know the

gravity of the beer which they buy? Is there to be any check?
Would he care, before the Measure goes to another place, for the Government analyst to analyse the beer of the various people who will benefit by the Bill? The House should remember that there are certain small classes of brewer who will benefit by the Bill. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to get the public analyst or the Government chemist to analyse these beers and to let us know which brewers are selling water and charging tax on it and which, like Charrington' s, are comparatively honest?
If the Home Secretary is serious about monopolies, does he think that there is any more obvious monopoly than that of the tied house? Is he prepared to take any action, or is his only action in dealing with monopolies to be to impose a monopoly where one did not exist before? Is the Home Secretary serious about the small man? Is he not aware that the tenant who lives on the premises is one of those who have no security of tenure? Is the Home Secretary proposing to do anything about him? Is he serious about the amenities of the new towns, or is he just going to sell them to a brewer who sells bottled beer of an original gravity of 29 points?
My case is that there is a gross inflation of prices and that there is a fraud on the Revenue. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposing to say, "I shall leave all these matters alone"? Is all that he is going to do, at the behest of and cheered on by the brewers, to make universal everywhere a scandal which cries out for remedy?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to second the Motion.
The Motion was so well moved and the points were so well covered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that there is very little I need add. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this matter seriously, because our proposed new Clause is an attempt to set the people free. It would only set them free in the new towns for the moment, but it would not be a bad thing to try this important experiment in a limited sphere in order to see precisely how it worked.
There is only one thing which fell from my hon. and learned Friend with which I was not in complete agreement. He appeared to convey the impression that licensed victuallers seemed to be against the proposed new Clause, but I am sure that they are not. The truth is that they have just about as much chance of expressing their views on licensing matters as Liberal voters had under the old Tory régime. The Licensed Victuallers' Association are very reluctant to fight the brewers because they know what the results might very well be.
The situation is serious. Everyone knows precisely what is the position of a licensed victualler holding a tied house licence. It is exceedingly doubtful whether his agreement does not violate the law. I have always contended that it did, because the licensed victualler is under a common law obligation to provide reasonable refreshment for man and beast, yet he cannot do it if there are certain kinds of refreshment that he cannot sell.
It is said that the licensed victualler is free to sell any kind of drink, such as tea, coffee or cocoa, but everyone knows that the licensed victualler whose sales of beer drop gets notice to leave. If he increased the sales of other beverages he might have to go. He has no protection, and no reason has to be given for giving him notice under his tied house agreement, which lays down the period of his notice. The case is usually taken to the local petty sessions, where the bench are compelled to make an order for possession.
That is not the only trouble for the licensed victualler. Even if he increases his sales of beer so as to make a very profitable public house he may get notice and be replaced by a manager, or his rent may be put up. He may be faced with the necessity of signing a new agreement and have to pay more.
There is a second matter, on which I tried to intervene in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend. I was very sorry that he tempted the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) to speak, but perhaps he forgot that this proposed Clause is one on which the hon. Member will be debarred from voting because of his financial interest. There may be some point as to whether the hon. Member is even in order in speaking on the matter

at all. It should be borne in mind that the hon. Gentleman was tempted to his feet by observations made by my hon. and learned Friend.
I want to repeat two or three sentences which I used in speaking on an earlier Clause and to say that a very important temperance question is involved in the present proposals, too. I have had very considerable practice in licensing affairs. If a man wants to drink beer or whisky I think he is entitled to do it, and if a man wants to drink tea, coffee or cocoa he is equally entitled.
The whole trend of licensing reform has been aimed at the establishment of licensed premises where a man can buy what he likes, and can go in with his wife and have a glass of beer while his wife has coffee or tea—or the reverse. The wife can have the beer and the man can have the tea. I do not see why the Home Secretary should not facilitate this experiment. I was staggered and surprised by the figures from the analyst's certificate, which my hon. and learned Friend did not give but indicated to the House. I wish he would read those figures, because it is time that they were known.

Mr. Bing: If my hon. Friend really wants the figures of original gravity, which are the figures on which you pay duty, they are: Watney' s Pale Ale, 32.1; Meux' s London Pale Ale, 29.9; Charrington' s Pale Ale, 37.1; Barclay's India Pale Ale, 29.7 and Taylor-Walker's Pale Ale, 31.5.

Mr. Hale: Those figures are practically conclusive evidence not only that nightingales do not sing in Berkeley Square but that there is not even a good swallow. This is a matter to which the Home Secretary ought to devote attention, and if he would consult the President of the Board of Trade he might find it one which should be referred to the Monopolies Commission. It is a monopoly of a vicious type, directed against the public, and my hon. and learned Friend has now shown that it is engaged in swindling the public.
I said during the Committee stage that I was hoping to spend the summer holiday abroad, and I hope I may say in the presence of my right hon. Friend, in view of some recent statements, that I actually followed in his footsteps. My wife and I


took a little walking tour along the River Loire in circumstances of extreme beauty, but we were condemned by the travel allowance to visit only what the "Guide Michelin" refers to as sixth class public houses. However, we found always a charming and delightful welcome and most suitable accommodation in every village, however small. We made no preparations at all. We stopped when it rained or when we were hungry—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or thirsty."] When I was thirsty, not my wife. We always found a kindly welcome, a clean bed and food.
To-day, if one wants to see the beauties of England, other than through the Youth Hostel movement, there is really no chance of finding those facilities. It is nonsense to say that the licensed victualler does not want to give them because it is only when one goes to the free house that one finds any hospitality.
All of us who know Watling Street and the Great North Road are aware that here and there can be found a free house where one can get a snack or a good meal if one has time and money, or a bed at a reasonable price, and the old fashioned, traditional hospitality of the licensed house. All this is being strangled by this great monopoly. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) represents—I do not mean that unkindly—but he is associated with it. I address these remarks to him in the hope that he will help the people concerned to mend the error of their ways.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman could easily accept this Clause. It gives what he has appealed for on other occasions, a full discretion to the licensing justices. It enables them to try to lay down the sort of premises they want in their area and the sort of management they need.
In conclusion, there is one thing I welcome in this matter, that the solitary representative of the Liberal Party who, with a sore and heavy heart voted Tory on every occasion—at any rate, on every occasion when he was present—during the Committee stage of the Bill, will be able to rise in his place in a moment or two and say, "Here is a proposal which would have gladdened the heart of

Lloyd George and the Liberal leaders of the past, and on this occasion I shall support it and shall go into the Lobby if necessary to support this exceedingly important proposal."

Mr. Frederick Gough: I was on this Bill when it was in Committee upstairs. I have looked most carefully through the Clauses and I cannot see anything in them which prevents a free house in any of the new towns. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any point in creating in this Bill a monopoly for free houses. In the course of time the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) may be fulminating just as much against a monopoly as he has been in the introduction of this Clause this afternoon.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a unique form of argument to which I want to refer. He gave the names of many brewers and he has no doubt taken their beer to the analysts. May I put this point to him? If all those brewers are watering their beer, as he said, when he has produced his free houses in the new towns what kind of beer will they have?

Mr. Bing: There are some brewers, particularly those who have no tied houses and, therefore, depend on the free market, who sell beer of a proper strength. It is on those beers, no doubt, that the free houses would decide. Competition would drive out the bad beer.

Mr. Gough: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has carried his "pub crawl"—If I might so call it—to the length of taking in the beers of those brewers and whether he has actually had those analysed as well.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred to the question of a tenant whose beer sales fall and who is then promptly sacked. Whether or not that is an exaggeration, it is not for me to say. In the case, however, of the free house where the man is his own master surely, if his beer sales drop, he goes bankrupt. I should have thought that his condition was worse than that of the tenant, because even if the tenant is sacked he still has a little money of his own whereas the licensee in the free house whose beer sales fall is completely out of business.
I feel that the argument on this Clause put up from the other side of the House has no support whatever among the mass of the people. First of all, the tied house is no new thing. It has been in existence since the end of the 18th century. I can say, as one who likes his glass of beer, that the average "pub" in this country today has improved in cleanliness, in amenity value and in lack of any evidence of drunkenness immeasurably during the past 50 years.

Mr. G. Lindgren: It is so watered that people cannot get drunk.

Mr. Gough: There are about 73,000 public houses in this country and over 89 per cent. are already tied houses. I do not accept the argument that 89 per cent. of the people who go into the public houses in our towns and villages are as dissatisfied as the hon. and learned Gentleman made out when he moved this Clause.
I oppose this Clause because, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West said, we want to set the people free. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We want to set them free from the worst possible monopoly and that is the monopoly of the State "pub." There has not been enough said about that. What has been said about Carlisle? The people there have no choice of beer. They will not have any choice of beer in the State "pub" because they have the ordinary locally brewed beer, but they have a choice of beer in the tied house, and they also have the choice in the new towns of having free houses. After all, there is no reason why any person who wants to start a free house in the new towns should not do so under this Bill.
Therefore, I think it is far wiser to leave the Bill as it is, to make it possible for the free house to exist in the new towns and also the tied houses which I know in the case of Carlisle are serving the people extremely well, and for one to compete against the other and in that way best serve the wishes of the people.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that on this occasion I shall be with him. The Liberal Party has no doubt where it stands on questions of monopoly. While

in the Committee I supported the Government consistently in their endeavour to get rid of the State monopoly, as the hon. Gentleman so rightly said, and on this Clause it is only logical to get rid of what might be a brewers' monopoly. I hope that the Home Secretary will give the Clause careful consideration and will accept it.
5.0 p.m.
I do not profess to have anything like the wide and inside knowledge of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) of the brewery trade, but it is as well to bear in mind, whatever the arguments may be, that as regards having competition and providing the customer with the types of drink that he requires, undoubtedly a free house will best give it to him.
If the Government do not accept the Clause but, by their majority, overrule it, they will be spoiling what can be a good move in the right direction. It can be an experiment to see exactly how free houses work under modern licensing conditions: and from that possibly there could be an expansion and other legislation later so that we ensure that the free houses in the rest of the country do not continue to disappear, as they are doing.

Mr. Eric Johnson: It appears to me that the chief effect of the Clause would not be to give greater freedom to the development corporations in the new towns, but to restrict their right to decide who was to own, occupy and operate the licensed premises in the new towns. If the brewers are not to be allowed to do so—if they insist on selling their own beer and not any and every other kind which the public may reasonably demand, whatever "reasonably" may mean in this connection—immediately a large section of possible occupiers of these public houses would be excluded.
As has already been pointed out, free houses can be set up. The development corporations can own and operate their own public houses. Hotels can do so, and so can catering firms. If, then, the licensing justices, knowing full well that the breweries would insist on selling their own draught beer exclusively, although not necessarily their own bottled beer, decide to let them run some of the public houses, I do not see why anybody should object. I know that those who object to


the Bill and to the tied house system in particular say that it restricts the facilities which are given to customers and their right to drink the beer, or even the minerals, of their own choosing. They say, further, that the brewers are unwilling to supply food or the other amenities for which the public may ask.
Before referring briefly to this question of what constitutes a reasonable choice, however, I should like to say something about the suggestion, which has been made on more than one occasion, although not today, by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) in particular, that the brewing industry restricts the right of the tenants to its houses to sell what minerals they like; in other words, that it ties them for minerals as well as for beer. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is true."] It may be true in some cases, but they are very few. Eighty per cent. of the brewing industry do not tie their tenants for minerals in any shape or form.
On the Second Reading debate, the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch suggested to the Home Secretary that he might make a simple test to show that the breweries wanted to discourage the sale of non-intoxicants. He went on to say:
Let him go into a tied house of Messrs. Charringtons and ask for a bottle of lemonade. Then let him measure how much he gets, and ask for a bottle of their beer. He will find that he has to pay only one halfpenny less for the lemonade than he has to pay for the beer.
The hon. and learned Member then asked:
Why is that? Because the people he is going to put in the new houses are charged, first of all, a royalty on any lemonade they are allowed to sell and they put up the price of lemonade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 1186.]
I am sure that the hon. and learned Member would not wish to mislead the House in any way, but what he said in the second part of that quotation is, according to my information, just as much inaccurate as the statement he has made more than once that the "Daily Worker" is the best source of information on racing.
In point of fact, the price of lemonade varies considerably in different houses occupied by Messrs. Charringtons. Not only does the price vary, but, of course,

the brand varies also. The price at which it is sold is nothing whatsoever to do with Charringtons. It is a matter purely for the licensee himself and for the makers of the lemonade. It may be true that the price of lemonade and of beer is much the same.
Indeed, the hon. and learned Member rather under-estimated the price of lemonade, because if he goes, not to a house of Charringtons, but down to the Strangers' Bar, he will find that a bottle of lemonade costs 8d. and a bottle of beer, although not Charringtons, costs 11½d.; and as the bottle of lemonade is considerably smaller than the bottle of beer, he would find that here, in the Strangers' Bar, lemonade is more expensive than beer.
I do not think that the hon. and learned Member would suggest that the Kitchen Committee are in any way tied to the brewers or that the brewers are attempting to force hon. Members to drink beer rather than lemonade, but that is what his argument would seem to suggest.
It is perfectly natural that the brand of lemonade should vary just as much as the price between one house and another. Charringtons do not tie their tenants in any way as regards the sale of minerals. They have no interests in mineral water sales. They do not know how much their tenants sell, and the tenants are perfectly free to buy any brand they like, to buy it wherever they like, and to sell at whatever price they please.

Mr. Bing: I bow to the hon. Member's knowledge of where the best sporting tips are to be obtained. My knowledge is not anything like his, and if he corrects me on that matter I humbly accept his correction. On the matter of the price of lemonade, however, leaving aside the question of the Kitchen Committee, which I do not think is in order, I ask the hon. Member this: in any of the cases where he investigated, did he ask the tenants to show him their agreement with the brewers?

Mr. Johnson: In no case which I have investigated have I asked more than the price of the lemonade and of the beer. In each case I have asked the tenant or, in the case of one Charrington' s house which I visited, the manager, if they were restricted as to where they bought minerals and was told that they could buy


whatever lemonade they liked. The brands varied a good deal. Indeed, one tenant told me that he happened to be selling "Presta" at the time because the "Presta" traveller had recently called but that the next week it might be Schweppes, and that the brewers did not tell him in any way what he ought to sell.
Let me pursue the matter from the other side, also. There are two breweries in Manchester which own a very large number of public houses. In one case they never have tied their tenants in any shape or form. In the other case they did so until about three years ago and then stopped doing so under the provisions of the model tenancy agreement of, I think, 1948; and now those tenants can buy their minerals wherever they like. It is true, however, that if they continue to buy from the suppliers to which they have been tied, the brewery gets a discount on the amount sold, but they do not in any way bring pressure upon the tenants to buy from them.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch went on to refer to the question of a royalty and said that it was because of the royalty that the price of lemonade was put up so high. To whom is that royalty paid? It is certainly not paid to Charringtons. Charringtons do not receive a royalty. The tenants tell me that they do not pay a royalty. Therefore, there is no reason to put up the price of lemonade because of some imaginary, non-existent royalty.
Food in public houses, certainly in the larger cities food is not often obtainable—at any rate, not in public houses in a place like Manchester. There are, however, some public houses in Manchester which provide sandwiches and snacks of various kinds. Others have tried it but have abandoned the practice when it has not been a success. The whole point is that the brewer is perfectly prepared to provide catering facilities, just as much as the free house is willing to do, if the public demand it. That is all that these brewers are concerned with.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Only if they demand it in a free house.

Mr. Johnson: If they demand it in a tied house. I could take the hon. Member to several in Manchester and show him where he can get it, in a tied house.
I have no doubt that a large number of people who live in the new towns will have come from London and may wish to exercise what is called their inalienable right of drinking the draught beer to which they have become accustomed in London. It would not be difficult to think of about a dozen breweries which sell draught beer in London. Surely it is not suggested that public houses, tied or free, in a new town can possibly carry all these varieties of draught beer to cater for every possible taste of people coming from London?
One can think of many difficulties. It would be equally impossible to carry a large stock of bottled beer. It would be quite impossible to keep a great many different kinds of draught beer in good condition. In the case of a large and varied stock of bottled beer of different kinds I do not think any public house could tie up so much of its stock in this way.
It is utterly fallacious to suggest that a State-owned "pub," a free house, gives a wider choice than a tied house. The average tied house provides probably two or three draught beers of its own, mild and bitter and very often its best mild and in many cases they supply draught Bass as well and bottled beers, such as Bass, Worthington and Guinness stout. If one compares that with the State-owned public house in Carlisle one finds there is no greater choice in the State house than in the tied house.
In Carlisle one can get Carlisle draught mild and bitter and their bottled pale ale and a certain amount of bottled beer, but not very many more than one can get in the tied house. It stands to reason, also, that two tied houses in Carlisle would offer double the choice of draught beer than all the State-owned houses in Carlisle put together.
If I may return to the subject of gravity to which the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch has referred, it is a fact that the Carlisle State-owned breweries do not put the gravity of their beer on the label—or not on any that I have seen.

Mr. Glanville: Do the private brewers do that?

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. We have had our attention drawn to that fact by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch and I


was pointing out that the practice in the State-owned brewery was no different from that of the private brewery. The gravity is not stated.

Mr. Bing: I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to be unjust and will, therefore, mention that the co-operative brewery does, of course, declare the gravity of its beer.

Mr. Gough: Which one?

Mr. Bing: The club breweries.

Mr. Johnson: I think the name is the Northern Clubs Brewery, or something rather similar to that. They do not invariably put the gravity on their labels. I have seen their labels on which the gravity was not stated. It may be the practice now, but it has not been done universally in the past.
5.15 p.m.
It has been further suggested in debates on this Bill that one effect will be a carve up of the new towns by the different breweries, but no evidence has ever been produced that that will happen. Our experience in these new towns suggests that that is most unlikely to happen. Public houses in the 14 new towns are owned by different breweries. In Welwyn Garden City there are four public houses owned by Whitbreads. Why is that? There was no need to give them all to one firm.
I am given to understand, and no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong, that Welwyn Restaurants Limited insisted on this monopoly in an attempt to get the maximum possible price for the property on which these public houses were to be erected and that Whitbreads did not want it. Although in a technical sense it may be a monopoly in Welwyn Garden City, it is not an effective one, because one has only to go outside the confines of the Garden City to find a public house owned by another firm about 300 yards away and another a matter of 400 yards away. I am given to understand that each of those public houses is owned by a different firm. So there is a choice of three, one being in the new town, although not in the original estate.

Mr. Lindgren: Can the hon. Member give the distance to these public houses from the centre of the town?

Mr. Johnson: I cannot give the distance, but one is about 300 yards from the outskirts and the other about 400 yards, which would not be an unreasonable distance to go for a drink—

Mr. Lindgren: Not from the outside, but it would be from the centre.

Mr. Johnson: I still think it not unreasonable. A walk would provide a good thirst and would be through a nice town.
There are no doubt some forms of State ownership with which many people agree, but I suggest that State "pubs" are most emphatically not what we want. The purpose of the Bill is to give greater freedom to the licensing committees and to the new towns development corporations and a wider choice to the consumer than is available in places like Carlisle where we have the experiment in State ownership. I believe it is wholly undesirable to accept any amendment which would whittle down one of the objects of the Bill—that of giving greater freedom.
The real purpose of this new Clause is to attack the brewers, not to do anything about better amenities in new towns. It will not fulfil its ostensible purpose of giving a wider choice to the consumer if we deny the public the better built, better equipped and better run public houses, which the breweries can provide. I hope that this new Clause will either be withdrawn, or overwhelmingly defeated.

Mr. James Glanville: Very seldom do I intervene in debates in this House. When I do so I am generally an authority on the subject. I have listened to this debate today and I think I have entirely wasted most of my day by doing so.
There is a very simple solution to this problem. I am not concerned whether the "pubs" in the new towns are owned by the State, or by private enterprise. My view is that there should be no "pubs" there at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) will agree with me on that. Will he agree with what I say next? I believe that the suppliers in the new towns should accept the principle which we established many years ago on the North-East coast by building a brewery of their


own and setting up their Working Men's Club and Institute Union.
It is many years since that was done in the North. Never mind the Carlisle experiment—that is a mere nothing, just temporary; it was only done to dope a few lads in the First World War because the beer was too strong for them. The Carlisle experiment would not even satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. We set up our own Working Men's Club and Institute Union many years ago. We have a brewery of our own which we work on the co-operative principle. I offer this as a suggestion to anyone who resides where the new towns are to be.
I can tell the House that already an approach is being made for a site for a working men's club in a new town in Durham County. We are always ahead there: Durham leads, the rest follow. It is a waste of time to argue whether there shall be privately- or publicly-owned public houses. Socialise the liquor trade. Let those concerned set up their own breweries.
We do not even make our clubs tied houses. In a little public house near my home I can get a Scotch beer, a Guinness, a Bass—I can get anything because we are prepared to rely on our own Clubs' Federation beer to prove itself, and it has a larger sale than all the rest put together.
A great deal has been said today about the price of lemonade. I cannot claim to be an authority on that; I leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, but I would say that the question will solve itself in the areas concerned if the public become interested in their own well-being. Is there any question whatever that the Government are handing over the new public houses in the new towns as a bribe to the brewers for valuable services rendered during the Election?
The Northern Clubs' Federation Brewery has, ever since its inception, stated the gravity of its beer on every invoice that it has sent out. [Interruption.] I say that it has stated the declared gravity on the invoice. I have been a member of a club for more than 40 years and the hon. Member should not contradict me. There is not a private brewery in the country which will state the gravity of its beer on the invoices that it sends out.

Mr. E. Johnson: I referred to labels, not to invoices.

Mr. Glanville: The label on a bottle does not tell one what the bottle contains. Only a week or two ago there was the case of a child being poisoned when its mother had some concoction in a mineral water bottle and her child drank some of it. The label on the bottle said that it contained lemonade, but when the child drank some of the contents she nearly poisoned herself.
The invoice is a written declaration of the value of the commodity that is being sold. The Northern Clubs' Federation Brewery are the only people who will state the declared gravity. I do not wish to take up too much time as I know that others wish to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Well, it is a change to hear someone talking about a subject with which he is conversant.
Whether we accept this new Clause or not—and if we accept it it will make an inroad into the privileges of the private brewer—I hope that the great possibilities which the Working Men's Club and Institute Union affords will be borne in mind—socialisation of the liquor trade, not mere State control.

Mr. Marlowe: I am not quite sure at the end of all that the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville) has said, which side he is on in regard to this new Clause. But the complexity of this problem could not be better illustrated than by the fact that the hon. Member was heard on this occasion to be claiming to walk arm in arm with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson).
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) claimed that the Clause bore some similarity to a Bill which he said he had had ready for presentation but had never moved. He did himself less than justice. I have heard him move that Bill on dozens of occasions, including today. I have heard him move it on the Adjournment, I have even heard him move it on the occasion of a Motion for the Guillotine. He really cannot deny that he has had plenty of opportunity to present his Bill.
There is one aspect with which I will deal which the hon. and learned Member presented with his usual remoteness from the facts. He referred to specific gravity. That is a scientific aspect of the matter


with which I am not particularly familiar; I am more concerned with the legal side. He has repeated an allegation which he has made on a number of occasions in regard to the specific gravity on the label.

Mr. Bing: The original gravity, not the specific gravity.

Mr. Marlowe: The original gravity. I am concerned only with whether figures appear on the label or not. The hon. and learned Member contends that the Clubs' Federation breweries and the Co-operative breweries put the specific gravity on the labels, and he claims that the private enterprise brewers do not. One accepts his assurance on this point, but I can only tell him that I have more than 20 labels of Federation, club and Co-operative breweries, and not one of them bears any reference to gravity.
We were told a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Consett that the gravity was stated in the invoice. That is not really helpful to the customer, who sees the label. The hon. Member referred to the Northern Clubs' Federation Brewery. I have here three labels of the Northern Clubs' Federation Brewery Limited, which are the labels that go on their various products. One is "Federation Mild," another "Federation Special" and the third "Federation Pale Ale." There is no reference whatever on those labels to the gravity.
While I accept the assurance of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch that it is the custom to state the gravity on the labels, I can only say that it is very unfortunate that I do not seem to be able to find the same labels as those to which he has referred.

Mr. Bing: The hon. and learned Member misunderstood me. I said it was the custom of the club breweries to declare the gravity and that it is the custom of the private breweries to hide it. If the hon. and learned Member is in a position to deny that, he should do so.

Mr. Glanville: Might I correct the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe)? I did not say that the brewery of which I spoke stated on the label the gravity of the ale. I said that they did so on the invoice which is tendered.

Mr. Marlowe: And I accurately repeated what the hon. Member for Consett said. He said that they put it on the invoice, I agree. But the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch has on more than one occasion referred to it being put on the label. That is the important point. The hon. and learned Member referred to it during the Committee stage. He then claimed that these gravities appeared on the label. He may well be accurate but I can only say that I have more than over 20 of the labels of the Co-operative Club and Federation breweries, and I have not been so fortunate as he has been. I have not found a single one on which the gravity is stated.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Baird: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman? It is rather an important point. Obviously, the hon. and learned Gentleman does not know much about the running of working men's clubs. The management of a working man's club is elected by the membership, and if the figure is quoted on the invoice it is open to any member to know what the gravity is—[Laughter]—of course it is.

Mr. Marlowe: I can quite understand the hon. Member wanting to shift the ground a little bit now. I was talking about labels, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he can look at the labels at any time he likes, but he will not find the figure on any of the ones which I have been able to secure.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch made the usual case which he always does—we have heard it very often, it is wearing a bit thin now I think, and there is a certain amount of tedious repetition about it—about Mr. Isaac Hampton. The hon. and learned Gentleman always makes out a moving case about how this poor old man was evicted from his public house by the tyrannical brewers. The facts are that Mr. Isaac Hampton, having been twice caught watering his beer, the brewers thought it was not in the public interest—

Mr. Bing: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say by what tribunal these facts were established, what tribunal this gentleman appeared before and by what tribunal were these allegations established, which he knows perfectly well would prevent the man from getting another job—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think we are getting slightly beyond the new Clause.

Mr. Marlowe: I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt be aware that the watering of beer is an offence against the Act of 1885; and of course if a licensee sells it and repeats the offence, the brewer has little or no alternative but to secure his removal.

Mr. Bing: Did they not prosecute, then?

Mr. Marlowe: I am not going to be cross-examined by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman always starts his case by painting a picture of an unhappy tenant of premises in the tied house. It is perhaps unfortunate that this form of business has acquired this name of a tied house. But when we look at the number of people waiting to become tenants of tied houses there seems to be a singular willingness to get into this form of bondage. It is amazing, if the unfortunate tenant is such a slave of the brewer, that there is such a long waiting list to acquire these premises.

Mr. James Hudson: There are many awaiting admission to lunatic asylums as well.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman—and in this he was supported by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—went on to paint a pathetic picture of a tenant being evicted, almost as it were without notice, by the brewer. That bears no relation whatever to the facts. The facts are that there is now a model tenancy agreement under which at least 12 months' notice has to be given. Now a new tenant is given security in that he cannot be given notice within the first six months of his occupation and thereafter at least 12 months' notice must be given.
The reason that has been done is that it became necessary for the brewers to remedy an injustice originally set up by the Socialist Party. What, in fact, happened in relation to this is that when the Labour Government was in office between 1929 and 1931 they were the first to take up this problem. They set up a Committee to consider whether or not

the Rent Restrictions Act should apply to licensed premises. In the Committee stage of this Bill the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch made great play with the fact that in 1933—implying, of course, that it was the Conservative Party who had done it—the Rent Restrictions Act was removed from its jurisdiction over licensed premises.
In fact, that was done at the instance of the Labour Party who set up an appropriate Committee in 1930 under the chairmanship of a well-known Socialist, Lord Marley. On that Committee there were two Conservative Members of Parliament and six Socialists. They reported that the Rent Restrictions Act ought not to apply to licensed premises and it was as a result of the recommendation of that Socialist dominated Committee that legislation was brought into effect. The hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to impose that on the Conservative Party.
If we are to abolish the tied house I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that it will not be possible for the required number of people to set up licensed premises on their own account. I am told that to start a public house today would probably require a minimum of £25,000 to £30,000 and involve great risks. Not everybody can be assured that if licensed premises are put up in a particular place it would be a profitable concern.
The brewers can afford to take the risk. They have money at their disposal and they spread the risks all over the various parts of their area. They can take the risk of whether or not a venture will be profitable. Not many people in this country today, acting on their own initiative, would be prepared to put up £25,000 to £30,000 to start a public house. It is as a result of this organisation of the brewers that the public are able to get a better service.
Reference has been made to the great improvement which has taken place in public house building in this country in this century. That is entirely due to the fact that the brewers have been prepared to invest immense sums of money in the improvement of existing public houses and in the building of new ones. The benefit of that has been passed on to the public. If we did not have that vast organisation available people would not get those improvements. The brewers


have their own organisation which, in fact, is really their selling service. They are able to provide a good selling service, because they are able to do it on a large scale. Without that kind of service the public would not get the amenities which they get today.
If, instead of that, there were only free houses I think it is a fair estimate that the free house would not be able to provide the alternative choice of beers which is always suggested. The accommodation would not be available. I am told that beer is not a thing which keeps for very long. It is necessary to have cellarage space. Unless there is a fairly quick turnover the beer begins to deteriorate in the barrel and is not fit for sale.
The owner of a free house is always confronted with that difficulty. In the cellarage space available at his premises he cannot keep a whole variety of different brews. He cannot keep half-a-dozen, or a dozen, different brews because of the risk of deterioration. Therefore, in practice, he concentrates on one, two or three different brews, and he has to see that they are available. The result is, for all practical purposes, exactly the same as in the tied house. There is a limitation of choice imposed upon him by circumstances rather than by contract.
That has been found where people have tried to operate the same kind of Clause as the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting forward today. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) is familiar with the Welwyn case, which he has referred to on more than one occasion. He has always claimed that at Welwyn Garden City Whitbreads secured a monopoly. What he does not make quite so plain to the House is that the monopoly was given to Whitbreads at the instance of what was equivalent to a development corporation.
It was Welwyn Garden City, Ltd., who insisted on the monopoly, because they could not themselves put up the free houses: they had not the money. When Whitbreads wanted to make a contract with them, the Garden City people said, "We insist on a monopoly, under which all the charges should be the same," which they did. That is the sort of thing which follows when we try to set up the sort of organisation which is proposed in this Clause.
The simple fact is that it is because the brewers are able to provide, by means of their vast organisation and their huge turnover, a proper and adequate service, that we get the amenities which we find throughout the licensed trade today, which Socialists are now steadily trying to abolish, with the inevitable result that the service to the public will fail. This attack is repeatedly made on the brewers, and it is made repeatedly by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, who very often puts forward a case which has only a slight or a remote relation to the facts in the instances which he produces.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the 29 evictions. All I can say is that I have been unable to trace them. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes allegations which he has never made any attempt to prove. He makes this charge that there have been 29 evictions, and apparently relies on a report which he saw in the "Daily Express." I do not know whether it is the case or not. I only want to suggest that he should prove his case.

Mr. Bing: The hon. and learned Gentleman, too, made an allegation when he suggested that the unfortunate licensee mentioned in connection with this matter was dismissed for watering the beer. That is a criminal offence, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman by whom he was prosecuted?

Mr. Marlowe: This is not the time or place, but I am prepared to establish the facts that I have asserted and I will certainly produce them, to prove that this man was evicted because he watered the beer. All I say is that I think the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch should—I do not ask him to do it now, but sometime later—produce evidence of the 29 evictions.
The real truth of the matter is that it is part of the creed of the Socialist Party to attack the brewers because they believe that brewers in general are part of the framework of the capitalist system. It is part of the animosity shown by Socialists towards anybody who becomes rich, and, because there are certain rich brewers in the country, the Socialists have turned their attacks upon them out of the envy, hatred and malice which characterises everything they do.

Mr. Hudson: The House will appreciate that I rise to enter into a discussion on mysteries with which I am little acquainted. I have listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) telling the House about the extent to which the brewers are now managing to water beer, and some of them, apparently, have gone so far in the process that they have reached the same point that was reached by the American Prohibitionists. I am almost persuaded that the real temperance advocates and protagonists in this country today must be the brewers. If they have turned their beer as nearly as possible into water, and if it really was as good as that, I should be very greatly relieved, as a temperance advocate, to hand the job over to them.
The fact is that one still has to meet the consequences of the drinking of beer of any sort, whether it is sold by brewers, by a State public-house, by a free house or by clubs in Durham about which my hon. Friend spoke. The beer that is sold by all these people has the same effect of bringing into the lives of the people, somewhere or other, a weakening influence which they might very well do without if they were wise. I am afraid that I shall have to go on making speeches with other temperance advocates for a long time, despite the discoveries which my hon. and learned Friend has made about the watering of beer, whether the brewers do it or anybody else.
I only rose to say that any process which tends to break up the powerful influence in politics and in trade which the brewing industry now represents in the life of this country is something that is very well worth while the attention of the temperance reformer. It is because I think that the tied public house should give place to a different sort of institution, in which the monopolistic power and the political power of the trade would, to a very considerable extent, be decreased, is right, that I propose, temperance reformer as I am, to give my support to his proposal.
For that reason, I thought it right, after all the appeals that have been made to me, when I only wanted to sit quietly through this debate, to get up and give expression to the view which I have just put before the House.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise to speak briefly, like the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), but not for the same reason. I wish to speak shortly because the constituency which I have the honour to represent has no breweries in it, so far as I know, no brewers and no new towns, and I can can therefore speak with complete impartiality.
I wish to speak against the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). I listened with great care to the case he submitted, which was based on a number of statements which he put forward with his usual force and clarity but which, in my respectful submission, were completely wrong. To begin with, the hon. and learned Gentleman described the licensed victuallers whom we all know in every part of the country. I was unable to recognise his description of licensees as "downtrodden, oppressed people, unable to speak with their own voices," which was the way in which they were described by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
At any rate, he must have met a different lot from the people I have met, because those I know are very capable of speaking their own minds whether to Members of Parliament, brewers, temperance reformers or anybody else. I can say with equal force but greater accuracy that these people are wholeheartedly and totally opposed to the suggestion that the running of public houses in the new towns shall be handed over to a committee of people in that new town or some other body, which would have no knowledge of the selling of beer in public houses.
Again, to place the brewers or other suitable persons running a public house under the authority of the new town is to deprive the public of the services and the houses to which they have become accustomed and to which they are fully entitled. Could any private individual ever raise the necessary capital to provide the services that are now available, not only accommodation and drinking facilities, but feeding and cooking facilities, staff facilities and bedroom accommodation, all of which are part of the stock-in-trade of these houses? Admittedly, all this was done between the wars by the money provided by brewery companies,


and to talk of monopoly in a matter of this kind is, to use the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, "arrant nonsense."
The hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in his reference to the area between Great Portland Street and Charing Cross, provided the answer to his own arguments. He mentioned a large number of different firms in that restricted area who were competing fiercely against each other for the hon. and learned Gentleman's custom and that of other people in that neighbourhood—

Mr. Bing: The area between Great Portland Street and Charing Cross is not in a new town, but is part of London. This Bill deals with public houses in new towns.

Mr. Doughty: I was well aware of that fact, and of the situation in the area between Great Portland Street and Charing Cross. I was merely repeating the words which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself used, and pointing out that his own words provided the answer to the arguments he put forward. In that restricted area there is a very large number of different brewers competing for business, and that applies throughout the whole country. Therefore, it is entirely wrong to call it a monopoly. If, in fact, the business was substantially run by one firm then I would support the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I am quite certain that the brewing industry can be proud of its record for supplying service to the people, a service which they appreciate and will continue to appreciate despite the efforts of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville), and I hope that working men's clubs will flourish and increase in number in new towns, though I cannot see why they should want their own breweries because I am sure that the existing brewers can supply their needs.

Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise for detaining the House after what has already been a rather long debate in which. I am afraid, many of the arguments have been repeated by a number of speakers. I am not an expert either on the law or practice of any of the matters which have been discussed in the

debate, and I only venture to intervene because I find myself considerably puzzled to know what the argument is about and why this proposed new Clause is being opposed.
There has been a considerable measure of agreement in the discussion that has taken place. For instance, every speaker so far has said that there ought to be no monopoly in these matters and that monopoly conditions ought not to be created in the new towns concerning licensed premises. The House is completely unanimous about that. Again, I think it has been agreed that where there are licensed premises the people who drink in them ought to have a reasonably free choice as to what beer or other beverage they wish to drink. Nobody has contested that.
The argument has been as to whether they will have a better guarantee of a free choice under what is called a "free" house as opposed to what is called a tied house. But there has been no disagreement on the point that they ought to have as wide a degree of freedom of choice as the local circumstances make possible. No one has suggested that one particular set of licensed premises can afford its customers at all times an absolute choice of all the various brands produced. It has been said that there ought to be a reasonable choice and that a customer ought not to be compelled to buy the product of one particular brewery or one particular brand. Everybody is agreed about that.
The argument that has ranged over the whole of this debate has been one about the general merits of tied houses as opposed to the general merits of free houses. I suppose my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is responsible for that because of the marginal note to his Clause which says:
Tied houses prohibited in new towns.
I think he will agree with me that his marginal note is not part of his Clause, and if it is a mis-description it can be amended.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is not a single word in the Clause itself about tied or free houses, but there has been a considerable amount of argument in the course of the debate to the effect that any wealthy and powerful firms of brewers


would or could undertake the serious risks of building commodious licensed premises with all reasonable modern amenities.
I can find nothing in this Clause to prevent any brewing company from having licensed premises in any new town. There is not a word in the Clause to prevent that, and if they can more conveniently do it than other people then let them go ahead. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would be perfectly content. All that it prevents—and I have read the whole Clause very carefully—is the making of agreements which necessarily lead to things which every speaker in the debate has said he is against.
The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) said—I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but as he said it very likely he is right—that one would get just as limited a choice of beer in a free house as in a tied house because the limitation of choice arises out of the necessary limitations which geography, economics and other considerations place upon the licensee rather than the limitations which arise out of a contractual agreement which compels a licensee only to take and offer for sale a particular brand. That is his argument and if it is right he ought to support this Clause.
All that the Clause prevents is any agreement which stops the licensee from offering a free choice of brands to his customers. It does not say that he must offer a free choice. After all, circumstances inevitably impose restrictions upon the freedom of choice. All it says is that if a licensee enters into a contract which obliges him to restrict the choice then that contract shall be void.
I should like to know who is against that. If it is said that the brewers never impose any of these limitations, to what are certain hon. Members objecting? All the Clause does is to make certain by statute that they shall not do what they say they do not do anyhow. There have been numerous attacks upon the brewers in this debate and a lot has been said in their defence. It seems to me that a great deal of that argument was irrelevant to this Clause, because it does not raise that argument.

Mr. Marlowe: It does. If the hon. Gentleman will look to subsection 2 (a), he will see that it forbids the entering

into a contract to supply a brand of intoxicating liquor.

Mr. Silverman: I do not quite follow what the hon. and learned Gentleman is inviting me to read. Subsection (2) says:
It shall be unlawful for any person either directly or indirectly in regard to any new town
(a) to enter or attempt to enter into any agreement
and then follows a number of things included in which is the thing to which the hon. and learned Member referred. But the only thing which the subsection makes illegal is that the licensee or anybody else shall enter into an agreement with a brewer whereby the licensee may take only the brands offered by that brewer.
I understood that the hon. and learned Member was himself in favour of no such restriction being imposed. I do not want to invite him to make another speech, but if he means that such an agreement as that ought to be lawful and that this Clause is wrong because it makes it unlawful, then he ought to make another speech, and it would, I suggest with great respect, be a very different speech from the one he has already made.
His speech was based on the allegation that these restrictions, which he deplored as much as anybody else, do not arise out of an agreement, but out of other circumstances and would still be valid and limit the customer's choice whether there was an agreement or not. Therefore, I invite him to say that he ought to join with all of us who only want to secure that there shall not be a valid contract which limits the customer's choice. If the customer's choice is to be limited by other things that cannot be prevented, all well and good. All that my hon. Friends are arguing is that there shall not be allowed in the new towns a valid contract to limit choice which, but for that agreement, would be a wide one.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member is arguing that this Clause does not forbid tied houses in new towns. He may or may not be right about that. If it is a matter of drafting he should argue that with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who intended that it should have that effect.

Mr. Silverman: I am always delighted to have a friendly argument with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, but any such argument as the hon. and learned Member for Hove invites me to have would be out of order at this moment. What this House is considering is what this Clause, in fact, does, and if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch mistakenly told the House that it prevented tied houses so much the worse for his argument. I have no need to correct him.
The Clause does no such thing unless it be true—and this is really the substance of the matter that hon. Members are contending on the other side—that no brewer would risk his capital in building licensed premises in new towns unless he was permitted to make such agreements as this Clause would make illegal.

Mr. Doughty: Why not?

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member asks, "Why not?" he is arguing against a speech which he made a few moments ago, in which he said that the brewers are in favour of the utmost freedom of choice and the reason why one ought to have tied houses is because with tied houses one has greater freedom of choice than ever. If one does have greater freedom of choice then there is no reason why the brewer should not build his premises in the new towns and waive any right to have an agreement of this kind. On the hon. Gentleman's argument he does not need it. And it is a bad agreement to enter into on the grounds of public policy, because on the face of it it is an agreement to limit choice. If it is not an agreement to limit choice it is not rendered invalid by this Clause. If the hon. Gentleman says that the brewers do not want such an agreement they ought to accept the Clause.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who is in charge of this Bill, why he does not accept this Clause. He will surely follow the argument which I have been advancing. He knows perfectly well that there is nothing in this Clause against tied houses. There is nothing in this Clause to prevent a brewer from owning a licensed premises in a new town, installing a tenant in it, installing a manager in it and getting a licence. So

all those general questions are not involved. It only prevents him from limiting by an agreement what a licensee wants to offer to the public.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has often delighted the House in his defence of freedom, at any rate in this limited sense. If he does not accept the Clause then it can only be because the brewers do not want him to accept it. There can be no reason on merit why he should not accept it. If he wants to establish, what he has contended so often, that in this matter the Government are acting according to their own conscience and discretion and are not being influenced by the pressure of the people who contribute largely to party funds, now is his opportunity to demonstrate that, not by an eloquent speech but by a very eloquent acceptance of this Clause.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot do that, if he remains the tied tenant of the brewers, can we, this afternoon, at any rate when it comes to voting on this Clause, be not a tied House? Can the House be free? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the Whips off and let everybody vote according to conscience about this? Let there be freedom of choice about this, at any rate. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is worth while to proceed in an argument from which all merit has long disappeared.

Mr. Lindgren: My speech in winding up from this side of the House will be much shorter than it otherwise would have been because of the very helpful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who has pointed out the legal points in this suggested Clause.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) will have to support us on this Clause, because he said that if there was anywhere where there was a complete monopoly, if there was a new town where there was only one brewer and every other brewer was prohibited, then he would support the Clause. He spoke about the different types of houses between Portland Road and Charing Cross. There is a town, one of the new towns—Welwyn Garden City with a population of 18,000—which is tied to one brewery, Whitbread. As a resident of that town I resent it, and I


want my freedom about which hon. Members opposite talk. Set Welwyn Garden City free from the brewers.
The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) said that Whitbread do not want a monopoly. The Development Corporation asked them to release the corporation from the monopoly, but Whitbread have said, "Before we give up the monopoly in this town we want you to compensate us for the loss of the monopoly." It is true that they pay for it; but this is freedom. Under the Ministry of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that monopoly went, and Welwyn Garden City was going to be free and able to have what public houses the people liked in the area.

Mr. Marlowe: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misinterpret what I said. I did not say that the Development Corporation and Whitbread were in dispute. I said that it was the Welwyn Garden City Limited, the formation company, which insisted on Whitbread having the monopoly.

Mr. Lindgren: That is perfectly true. Private enterprise in these operations tends towards monopoly. It is perfectly true that Welwyn Garden City Limited were the land developer. I pay full tribute to them because they did a first-class job. They tried to tackle a job which was beyond private enterprise. As a result of their work the New Towns Act of 1946 came into being, but they sold a monopoly to the brewers to enter the town in order to get money from the highest bidder.

Mr. Marlowe: That is what I said.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Whitbread obtained a monopoly. It has been said in this debate that on the outskirts of Welwyn Garden City, about 400 yards away, there is a public house belonging to some other brewers and people can go there if they like. That is perfectly true; but Welwyn Garden City is quite a big place and it is a considerable distance for people to walk from one side of the town to the other.
That very system which operates at Welwyn Garden City, with one brewer for one town, is what the brewers want for all new towns. That was their intention. If the hon. Member for Surrey, East meant

what he said about being opposed to monopoly to that extent, then I ask him to support this Clause, because this Clause gives freedom to us in Welwyn Garden City to have agreements with other brewers or to allow another brewer to come in. Under this Bill Welwyn Garden City or the Development Corporation of any of the new towns are being put in the hands of one single brewery who require public money in compensation if they give up the monopoly which they possess.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) said that this Bill and this Clause had no public support. It has the complete support of those who have already experienced the operations of brewery monopolies in new towns. There is unanimous opinion in Welwyn Garden City, irrespective of political opinion, that the monopoly of a single brewer is undesirable.
I am not singling out Whitbread in any way; in case it might be thought that I am, let me say that the management of their houses within the new town of Welwyn Garden City is of a very high standard and is up to the standard of the management of any house that I have seen anywhere. But what we object to is the monopoly of a single brewer over a single town. No one on the opposite benches has yet defended that situation except by saying that on the outskirts of a town there is another brewer.

Mr. Græme Finlay: Is the hon. Gentleman able to speak for any new town apart from Welwyn Garden City?

Mr. Lindgren: The new towns are the towns which will be developed under the New Towns Act, 1946, with public money. I do not want to be drawn into discussing anything outside the scope of the Bill, but, after all, there are no new towns except those which were established prior to the 1946 Act and which were experiments.
There is Letchworth which prohibits all "pubs," and the only people who broke the rule in Letchworth were the Conservative Party in the Conservative Club there. That is perfectly true. Letchworth is dry by the decision of the people in the town. The Garden City Company at Letchworth were foolish enough to believe that the Conservative Party would


respect the public opinion in the town, but, of course, they had a licence for the Conservative Club.
Welwyn is a second new town. The other new towns—Hatfield, Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead and the rest—are being built. We want to prevent in the other new towns what has been experienced in Welwyn Garden City.

Mr. Doughty: There is a simple answer to that problem. Build enough "pubs" and do not sell them to the same brewer.

Mr. Lindgren: But we are dealing with a monopoly trade.

Mr. Doughty: No, we are not. I pointed out in my speech that a monopoly was the last thing it was. The various members of the trade are in fierce competition with each other, and if we want to maintain that competition we should build enough "pubs."

Mr. Lindgren: I do not know whether I should address the hon. Gentleman as "learned," but if he is as simple as that I really wonder why to the members of the legal profession we give the term "learned." That was not meant offensively, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not take it offensively.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is much more competent to deal with this matter than I am. In fact, I ought to have left it to him because he has had experience as Home Secretary. But I will assert this, and my right hon. Friend will, no doubt, deal with it further at the appropriate time. Instead of rivalry there is such complete agreement among the brewers that they are prepared to agree areas of influence and boundaries of operation.

Mr. Doughty: No.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman says "No." I ask him, how it is that all over the country we have these various spheres of interest and influence?
Having been drawn into that question in a little more detail than I originally intended, let me state that the really vital point is the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. This Clause is designed to rid the people in an area from being confined completely to

the beers of a particular brewer by agreement among the brewers. We are not engaged in restrictive practices. If the brewers are the great benevolent friends of the public as hon. Members opposite have suggested, then there is nothing to stop them building a really fine public house in an area and allowing the tenants of that building to sell to the public what the public want.
All that this Clause says is that whoever is the tenant of a house in a new town shall be free to buy such beers as the local tastes of the area shall demand, and it shall not be legal for a particular brewer to tie the tenant of a house so that he must sell a certain type of beer. I hope that the House will give this Clause the support that it deserves.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I make clear at the outset that I am only able to deal with the argument which occupied the House for seven-eighths of the debate; that is the argument based on the fact that this Clause is called "Tied houses prohibited in new towns" and is extracted from the Tied Houses Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing). The issue before the House is whether there should or should not be tied houses permitted in the new towns.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Surely the issue before the House is not merely the marginal note to the Clause but the issues raised by the Clause?

Mr. Speaker: The issue raised by the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was of general application, whereas by this new Clause it is proposed to restrict its operation to these new towns, so far as I understand it. Therefore, the points do not cover the same area, but they are related.

Mr. Silverman: The Clause, in my submission, is qualitatively different from my hon. and learned Friend's Bill. The Clause does not raise at all the question of tied houses in the sense of houses which are owned and controlled or managed by brewery companies. It raises only the question of the validity of the restrictive agreements between the licensees and any other person, which is a quite different issue from the issue to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he is going to confine his speech.

Mr. Speaker: I can only repeat that I do appreciate that this new Clause raises a subject related to the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, but it is not so wide in its scope as that Bill.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to justify what he said a moment ago, that this Clause differs from the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch. I am willing to give way if he will tell me where it differs from the provisions of the Bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced.

Mr. Silverman: I think there are other things in my hon. and learned Friend's Bill besides those which are in this Clause. There are many other things which are not raised in this Clause. The principal point that I am making is that there is nothing in this Clause which deals at all with the right of brewery companies to own licensed premises. The Clause deals exclusively with the validity of certain restrictive monopolistic agreements.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman shows an innocence on the question of public houses which surprises me after an acquaintance of 30 years in which we have appeared in the same courts in our earlier days when many licensing questions were discussed. A tied house in the ordinary acceptance of the term, and the way in which we have always been using here, does not mean a house owned by a brewery company. It means a house where a brewery company has said, "In that house we put a tie on the manager that he will sell the draught beer of our brewery and no other draught beer." That is the sense in which we have used it through all our discussions of this Bill, and what I started by saying was that that was the sense in which I wanted to discuss the question today. Until we came to the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne everyone had approached it on that basis.
Fortunately, it is not necessary for me to recapitulate arguments which have already been recapitulated so many times. I listened with the attention I always give to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch,

which was easier to do on this occasion because, as regards two-thirds of it, I could follow it word for word in the speech he made during the Committee stage, and I had his printed word in front of me.
I was therefore interested to note that on the major points his arguments were answered, firstly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) and, secondly, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). The only point which has emerged with greater clarity than on the many other occasions when the hon. and learned Gentleman has made this speech is that he has now no answer to the question—that has been produced in the perennial conflict—as to whether the labels contained a statement of the gravity.

Mr. Bing: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree, or does he not, that the club brewers disclose the original gravity of their beer and that the private brewers refuse to do so? If he agrees, he should say whether he thinks that the private brewers ought or ought not to disclose the original gravity.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The point I was making—and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates it—is that when in the course of charges he is making he makes a statement about labels, the House is entitled to take the accuracy of his statement about labels as a test of the general accuracy of his charges. That is a matter which one is also entitled to take into account in connection with the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman is making today and with his appeal to me to accept this Clause.
I agree with him that this point relates to the field of the new towns and is not a general one, but it is a point which he had endless opportunity to press when his own party were in power for six years. As far as one can see he failed completely, in those days which were halcyon for his own party, to convince any of them that there was any importance in the point on which he has made such thunderous comment today.
The only part of his speech which we have not heard a dozen times before was the part about certain investigations which he had made and the results which had been obtained by analysts. If these


matters are accurate, as I understand it from a working recollection of the law they would disclose a criminal offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman comes here with charges of that kind, but when he has had information and when he has disclosed on so many hundreds of occasions his hatred and malice towards the brewers he is surely not going to try to convince us that there have been prosecutions about which he cannot tell us. He comes here with his account, but not a single case which has been brought to decision has he drawn to the attention of the House to justify the charge he has made.

Mr. Bing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's recollection of the law is wrong. There is no offence in selling a beer of very low gravity; there is no offence whatsoever in selling a beer of such low gravity that it does not contain any alcohol. If he cares to read the report of the Inspector of Weights and Measures for Kent he will find that the inspector calls attention to this fact and suggests that it might be made a criminal offence. It is because it is not a criminal offence and should be one that steps should be taken in that direction.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: During the course of his speech the hon. and learned Member said that there were sales of short measure and frauds on the Revenue. If those are not offences, somebody has been watering down the criminal law since I left the Bar. The onus is on the hon. and learned Gentleman, as it is on anyone who makes charges, to make out a case. If the hon. and learned Gentleman comes here with accusations about criminal offences without any statistics as to prosecutions that have taken place or have been successful, he really cannot expect to have any more success with me than he had with the Home Secretary of the Government which he supported for six years.
Let me leave these rather vague and insubstantial imaginings and come to the real question, which is that of tied houses in the new towns. We are considering this problem as a matter affecting the new towns. In the case of the new towns, assuming for the moment that there were some basis for this attack—although none has been shown—the new towns are so protected by this Bill that they would be

the last places where the suggestion would seem important.
If we consider the procedure in the new towns, the first safeguard rests with the development corporation. They will be, at least at first, the ground landlords of new licensed premises. They will be much concerned to ensure the success from every point of view of their new towns.
Then there will be the committee which will represent the development corporation and the licensing justices. It is difficult to imagine that they will encourage the continuance of abuses such as have been mentioned. Apart from their composition, the provisions of the Bill enabling the committees set up under it to draw up specifications for the sort of licensed premises to be provided—and, if I may strain the rules of order for a moment I would add that these provisions will be improved if Amendments on the Order Paper are accepted—form another safeguard and ensure not only that the premises are satisfactory but that the services and amenities which they provide will be satisfactory also. Then we come to the licensing justices upon whom the duty is imposed of seeing that these specifications and provisions take place.
We have to face the point which was made originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) that the tied house is the usual thing in this country and has been going on for something like 200 years. The people who are going to be affected if this change is made—and I do not think that the argument need be put any higher than that—are the development corporations and ground landlords whose desire it is to get as profitable a person as possible to contract with them, and to have the resultant funds for the general amenities and benefits of the people in the new towns.
6.30 p.m.
But I would point out, on this question which everyone is trying to approach on its merits, that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley showed quite clearly two things: first, that even if there were a complete tie for the area and every house to which people could go was under the same tie—and that is almost impossible to imagine—even so there would be exactly the same degree of freedom as is possible under State management; and secondly, as my hon. Friend went on to


show in what I thought was a most compelling argument, even if there were only two brewers within reasonable reach of the people, there is then twice the variety which exists under State management—and it goes on in the sane proportion as the numbers increase.
The second point which nobody has faced is the practical limits within which one can introduce a number of varieties of draught beer in the houses; and I say that with great respect to hon. Members who, I am sure, have applied their minds to this problem as carefully as they can. My hon. and learned Friend dealt with that point and, as I say, it has been unanswered in our discussions.
I ask hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who has looked at this matter very carefully, as our previous discussions show, to look again at subsection (1). Perhaps he will allow me to quote it from memory and will not be too stringent if I miss a word, as long as I give the sense, which is this: it puts the obligation on the licensee to provide such liquors as may be reasonably necessary.

Mr. S. Silverman: "Reasonably required."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I give the hon. Gentleman that: I do not think it is an essential difference, but I give it to him. The sanction is—and again I am paraphrasing the Clause—that if the licensing justices do not think he has done so, they can refuse his licence. That is the general effect of the subsection.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to interrupt for long, but I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make this point in fairness—and I am sure that this is not purely a verbal point:
… the licensing justices may refuse to renew a licence on the grounds that the holder thereof has persistently and unreasonably refused …

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I quite agree that it has to be shown to be deliberate and to appear to be unreasonable; and that would tie with "reasonably required." But it comes to this: if, in the view of the licensing justices, he ought to provide a certain type of beer and in fact he provides another type of beer, and the licensing justices in their wisdom think that is unreasonable—and once you have

a beer in the engines it will obviously be persistently done—then the licensing justices can use the sanction of refusing a licence. In other words, we put on the licensing justices—and I do not want to overstrain the point—the obligation and discretion of deciding the drink which is to be supplied. I think that is a very difficult situation to meet.

Mr. Silverman: rose——

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The only other argument with which I think I should deal is that of monopoly. Here, again, the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church made a dramatic and emotional appeal to me as one interested in the study of monopolies. For an awful moment I thought he had got hold of the book I once committed on the subject and was about to quote from it, but he spared me that.

Mr. Hale: We will look it up.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: But it is also an interesting fact that during the time of the late Government, for a period of about two years, when the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act was functioning and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was at the Board of Trade—not insusceptible, I should have thought, to the charms of the hon. and learned Gentleman—not once did the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend that this would be a suitable matter for study by the new machinery.

Mr. Bing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to make this point: not only did I have that Motion on the Paper, supported by my own name, but I think it was supported by about 140 or 150 of my colleagues, and it was a Motion just to that effect.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That leaves us with two interesting possibilities; one, that the hon. and learned Gentleman never put in an application to the Board of Trade such as the Act contemplates; or, secondly, that he did put it in and that the right hon. Member for Huyton turned it down for the nonsense it was. I do not mind; the hon. and learned Gentleman can have it either way.
On this question of monopoly one has to consider the facts, and it is idle to talk of a monopoly when the most difficult case which the hon. Member for


Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) made in his most frank and free discussion of the subject, if I may be allowed so to describe it, was where someone in the very centre of a town has to walk a few miles and then either 300 or 400 yards. The worst monopoly which can be contemplated is for the person whose house is at the absolute centre to walk two miles.

Mr. Lindgren: And 400 yards.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: And 400 yards; and anyone else would have a shorter distance, because it is not usually a contemplatable fact that public houses will be in only one sector.

Mr. Lindgren: They usually walk back from the "pubs" down our way.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss, I know

that what really worries him is the walk to the "pub."

I think the point which has been made is quite an amusing debating point about monopolies but not one which we can take very seriously. The major question is whether there is to be the opportunity of freedom of choice—and there has been no evidence brought forward to suggest that there will not be competition of public houses between different brewers—or whether we are to be limited to the beer of State breweries. That is the real question of monopoly. Apart from that, they are debating points, which disappear on touch. For these reasons I ask the House to reject this new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 268.

Division No. 231.]
AYES
[6.40 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Holt, A. F.


Adams, Richard
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Houghton, Douglas


Albu, A. H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hubbard, T. F.


Allen, Arthur (Besworth)
Deer, G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Awbery, S. S.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Baird, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.


Balfour, A.
Edelman, M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Bartley, P.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bence, C. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Benn, Wedgwood
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Benson, G.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Beswick, F
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Finch, H. J.
Keenan, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, C.


Blackburn, F.
Follick, M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W


Boardman, H.
Foot, M. M.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Forman, J. C.
Kinley, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bowen, E. R.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bowles, F. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Brockway, A. F.
Gibson, C. W.
Lewis, Arthur


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Glanville, James
Lindgren, G. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gooch, E. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Logan, D. G.


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
MacColl, J. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McGhee, H. G


Callaghan, L. J.
Grey, C. F.
McInnes, J.


Carmichael, J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Chetwynd, G. R
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Clunie, J
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Coldrick, W.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Collick, P. H.
Hamilton, W. W
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hardy, E. A.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Cove, W. G.
Hargreaves, A.
Manuel, A. C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hayman, F. H.
Messer, F.


Daines, P.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mikardo, Ian


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H
Hobson, C. R
Mitchison, G. R


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Holman, P.
Monslow, W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Moody, A. S.




Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Rhodes, H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Morley, R.
Richards, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Timmons, J.


Mort, D. L.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Tomney, F.


Moyle, A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, K.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mulley, F. W
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Murray, J. D.
Ross, William
Viant, S. P.


Nally, W.
Royle, C.
Wade, D. W.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Wallace, H. W.


Oldfield, W. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Oliver, G. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Oswald, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Weitzman, D.


Padley, W. E.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Paget, R. T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Va'ley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
West, D. G.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Slater, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Pannell, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Pargiter, G. A.
Snow, J. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Parker, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Paton, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Pearson, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Peart, T. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, Rev, Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Poole, C. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Popplewell, E
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Porter, G.
Swingler, S. T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Pryde, D. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Rankin, John
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Reeves, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)



Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Colegate, W. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Arbuthnot, John.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hay, John


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Baker, P. A. D.
Crosthwaite-Eye, Col. O. E.
Heath, Edward


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crouch, R. F.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Banks, Col. C.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Barber, Anthony
Cuthbert, W. N
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barlow, Sir John
Davidson, Viscountess
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baxter, A. B.
De la Bere, Sir Rupert
Hirst, Geoffrey


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Deedes, W. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Digby, S. Wingfield
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hope, Lord John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Donner, P. W.
Horobin, I. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Drayson, G. B.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Drewe, G.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J


Black, C. W.
Duthie, W. S.
Hurd, A. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bossom, A. C.
Erroll, F. J.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com, Clark (E 'b' rgh W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fell, A.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Braine, B. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Foster, John
Jennings, R.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bullard, D. G.
Gammans, L. D.
Kaberry, D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Burden, F. F. A.
Godber, J. B.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Butcher, H. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lambton, Viscount


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gough, C. F. H
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Carson, Hon. E.
Gower, H. R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Channen, H.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon A. T


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Lindsay, Martin







Linstead, H. N.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Speir, R. M.


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Low, A. R. W.
Osborne, C.
Stevens, G. P.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Partridge, E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Peto, Brig, C. H. M
Storey, S.


McAdden, S. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


McCallum, Major D.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Studholme, H. G.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Powell, J. Enoch
Sutcliffe, H.


McKibbin, A. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Teeling, W.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Redmayne, M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Renton, D. L. M.
Tilney, John


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Robertson, Sir David
Turner, H. F. L.


Markham, Major S. F.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turton, R. H.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robson-Brown, W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Marples, A. E.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vane, W. M. F.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Roper, Sir Harold
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vosper, D. F.


Maude, Angus
Russell, R. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maudling, R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Mellor, Sir John
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Molson, A. H. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Watkinson, H. A.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Scott, R. Donald
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Soott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wellwood, W.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Shepherd, William
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nabarro, G, D. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wood, Hon. R.


Odey, G. W.
Snadden, W. McN.



Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Major Conant and Mr. Oakshott

Clause 1.—(REPEAL OF STATE MANAGEMENT OF LIQUOR TRADE IN NEW TOWNS.)

Mr. A. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "towns," to insert "in England and Wales."
This is similar to an Amendment which we moved in Committee upstairs, but there is one great difference between the Committee upstairs and the House as at present assembled, in that in Committee there was one Scottish back bencher on the Government side, two Scottish back benchers from the Opposition, and in all only four Scottish Members, on a Committee deciding a matter of great importance to Scotland.
In view of the unfortunate absence of Scots from that Committee it is desirable that the House itself should take the opportunity of discussing this matter when the Scots are, or I hope will be, present. For instance, the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), who represents an area containing a new town, was not a Member of the Committee upstairs, and although I do not see

him present at the moment I hope that before the debate is concluded he will be able to express the views of his area towards a change that is to be made in the law governing the new towns.
It is important that the Scots as a whole should be able to make their voices heard on this matter. We do not want to hear again the reproach made on an earlier Bill of this type, when an English Member who was successful in the Ballot and moved a Motion said it was a matter which had time and again been before the House of Commons, and been decided over and over again, not by Scottish Members but by Members representing England.
The question is: What does Scotland's voice say on this matter? While there is no way of ascertaining that in a Division between Scottish Members themselves, they will at least have the opportunity of making their views known in the Division Lobbies, if not by their voices. One thing we have never been told is who in Scotland wants this Bill. Who has made any representation to the Government? What justification have the Government for changing the law in


Scotland? We have never been told that anybody in Scotland supports the Bill. I have never heard of anyone who particularly wants the Scottish new towns opened up to the old trade, and I should very much like to know whether there is any evidence of anybody having been asked in reference to this Bill what should be done in our new towns.
On the last Motion the House discussed the Home Secretary, in his concluding remarks, made a very interesting statement. He said that tied houses had been matters of habit in England for over 200 years; that everybody had been brought up to recognise them, and that everyone was accustomed to their existence. That just shows, as he must very well know, how different are the circumstances in Scotland. In Scotland there is no such custom, there is no such habit, people have not grown up used to the type of tied houses that exist in England. In Scotland habits on this point are entirely different.
Scotland is totally different in custom, approach, and in training. I am not saying that claim that Scotland has benefited from the difference. In some respects, especially in regard to training, I regret to say that I deplore the difference. In Scotland training has been different, and deplorably different.
The tragedy is that this Bill is to be applied to Scotland. Lord Ure described the origins of the Scottish approach many years ago, and I should like to put it on record. He said:
For generations the Scots have recognised the liquor trade as a great terror to our people, and that if we were to protect the community against the menaces and the dangers that were inherent in that trade it would require to be placed under continuous control.
That was a declaration made many years ago, and that atmosphere and approach have not changed. That was not a bigoted teetotal speech. I do not know whether Lord Ure was a teetotaller, but I am certain he was not a prohibitionist and had no desire to interfere with the liberties of his fellow Scots. But that view was recognised as wise, not only by people who wanted to be teetotallers but by people who wanted to keep the liquor trade itself beyond reproach. Indeed, I understand that that is the considered approach even of the advanced people in this trade today.
What was the continuous approach that could possibly be exercised? In one of the debates that took place another distinguished Scotsman, who was a Prime Minister for the party opposite, gave his view and considered judgment, when he said:
I do think that anything we can do can be done in one or two directions only. One is disinterested management, the arguments in favour of which seem to be exceedingly strong.
That was the purpose of the Act which this Bill now repeals, and while that opinion of Bonar Law was not expressed in regard to Scotland alone, the purpose of my Amendment is to apply it to Scotland alone.
I recognise that the Government, with their majority, have carried the principle of this Bill to repeal the earlier Act. But that does not mean that the arguments for repealing the earlier Act have any validity for Scotland. Indeed, I think the contrary to be the case, because every argument put forward tonight or in earlier debates have been arguments affecting English conditions only.
7.0 p.m.
Therefore, even though the Government have carried out their pledge to repeal the earlier Act as it applied to England, I beg of them, apart altogether from the party conflict that exists on this matter, to allow us to continue our experiment in Scotland to see whether we cannot do something better. In the new Scottish towns they have a chance to create prototypes—if I might so call them from my engineering experience—samples of what could be done to make the habits and customs of taking refreshment in Scotland different from what they have been in the past; to make them something that has not been open for Scots to see from experience in the years gone by.
It is easy to say that we should give the customer what he wants. I think that this House has to think of a better plan than merely catering for what have been the habits of the past. In other words, a part of the idea of the new towns was to create a new environment, and those of us who have studied the sociology of Scotland and England remember the experiment of Robert Owen, in Lanark, by which he so altered the conditions of the people who lived in that area that visitors came from every part of the world, including Russia, to see this remarkable


experiment whereby, by changing the environment of men and women, he took them from the sordid conditions in which they had formerly lived and made them into dignified human beings who were the wonder, at that time, of the social world.
In the new towns of today there is an opportunity to make a similar experiment with these places of refreshment. I am glad to say that the people of Scotland have changed for the better in this direction. In the lifetime of the Joint Under-Secretary of State and myself we have seen great changes. I myself have seen people whose whole ambition seemed to be to work, to drink and to sleep and to whom the intervals for meals were irritating necessities in that routine of life. It was really tragic to see men who rushed from their work and never went home till the public houses closed and they were turned out into the streets. The conditions that existed at that time were so bad that everyone is still afraid of the possibility of going back to them.
I feel certain that no one would intentionally create those conditions in a new town. Our fear is that these conditions may be created in a new town if it is simply to be left to the haphazard inspiration of someone to ask for a licence. The person who asks for a licence is concerned with the opportunity of opening up a shop, and it may be that he will not have the capital and necessary backing to make the place decent. He will start from scratch, so to speak, which means that we will have all kinds of crowded conditions. We want to create a condition where the place that is established for mere drinking disappears for ever, and we want to show Scotland that there can be another type of place.
In the past, these places existed, to all intents and purposes only for the sale of drink. We would like to see a situation where the drinking was incidental to the other facilities and not the other facilities merely incidental to the drinking. We want people of varied interests to be able to use houses of entertainment. I think that one of the bad things about drinking even now in Scotland is this. A man who takes a drink may have friends who do not drink. If that man wants to satisfy his thirst he has to cut himself off from his friends and congregate with other people with whom he

may not be friendly at all. In other words, the very social life of the country is disturbed by this congregation of people who take a drink and their separation from the people who do not take a drink.
It is quite wrong that a man who wants to have beer with his dinner, or to take some other refreshment, should have to leave his wife, as if he were going to do something shameful. If he can afford to go to an hotel he does not need to do that at all. He can go into the lounge of an hotel, his wife can have tea, and the children can have what they want and there is no shame about it, no indignity about it and no reproach about it.
Obviously, if we are building up a new type of life, in these new towns we have to give the people an opportunity of expressing themselves in a different way. We think that the people who want to have that type of refreshment ought not to be forced to isolate themselves and to go away to some place of which, as it were, they are ashamed.
I recognise that some temperance people think that that would be an inducement for more people to drink. I have always been against the idea that in order to discourage drinking we have to degrade the place in which people drink. I think it is horrible to contemplate that we must continually degrade the circumstances in which people take their refreshment in order to influence other people not to take it.
We have to create conditions where drinking becomes a mere incident in the hospitality afforded by the new towns to all the population of the new towns, and that there should not be any place in the new towns to which people cannot go with some satisfaction. If we could get places of the standard of hotels that is the sort of thing one could accept. The new towns will not have that opportunity if it is left to people just to apply for a licence. I hope that in Scotland an opportunity will be given to the Secretary of State to see that this experiment is carried out to fruition.
One of the advantages of the present law is that the Secretary of State has supervision over it, and he can see even from the point of view of the State experiment that in these new towns this will be carried out in the proper manner. Moreover the House itself will have considerable supervision over the Secretary of


State. Once this goes under the conditions of the new Bill, it goes outside the control of this House altogether and becomes a matter for other bodies. With all the best will in the world, these other bodies themselves are to some extent prisoners to the past, and this is an idea for breaking away from the past and making a far better experiment.
The mere drink shops that have existed are not unique to Scotland. In the "Liquor Trades Journal," which is advocating better conditions, I came across an example of one in London. It gives an ideal description, if one may call it such, of the drink shop which exists for no other purpose. It said this:
Based on the analysis of measurements taken with a foot rule during peak loads in a London house, each customer has less than 3 square feet to himself, the equivalent of 21 people in a non-corridor railway carriage.
That describes the conditions that we want to avoid. I would like to have some guarantee that this will not be allowed in the new towns. So far there has been no such guarantee. I think that we ought to express ourselves as strongly as possible in regard to Scotland that merely because the Government feel that there are some conditions in England that we want to change on account of the pressure of interests that pressure does not exist in Scotland and, therefore, we are not bound to follow them in any way.
If they feel that they must redeem their pledges to some sections of the trade, I appeal to them to leave us in Scotland to experiment on our own lines under the guidance of the Secretary of State, and to see whether the Secretary of State, with the plans which he took over from his predecessor, cannot give an example to Scotland in the building of these new towns and the construction of places of hospitality which will give a lead to something better throughout the whole of Scotland.
We are building new towns and bringing in young population to live in Fife and East Kilbride, and I hope that the Secretary of State will help us to see that in these new towns not only are the houses and factories good places but the hotels and other places of hospitality are worthy of the surroundings in which they are being built. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will see his way to accept this Amendment. If not, we would

like to press it upon him with a view to allowing Scottish Members to establish their opinion on this particular point.

Mr. William Hamilton: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) in seeking to keep the Scottish new towns out of the Bill. I believe the Joint Under-Secretary took my advice and visited one of the new towns in Scotland a week or two ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Both new towns."] Then the Joint Under-Secretary is improving. I believe I am also correct in saying that at Glenrothes, and maybe also at East Kilbride, he was very much impressed by the new environment which is being created for the people. I was glad to accompany the Joint Under-Secretary on a visit to some of the schools in Fife, and particularly to the new school in Ballingry.
All those new areas have one thing in common; they have been created by public enterprise. The Joint Under-Secretary knows better than I do how long-suffering Fife has been as an industrial area. It was devastated as a result of exploitation by private coal owners for centuries, and it is only now that the people of Fife are getting the amenities of life and the opportunities in life which have so long been their due.
A wonderful social experiment is taking place in Glenrothes. All the houses and schools are being built by public enterprise. The majority of the workers will be working in public enterprises. Glenrothes will be a new mining town, and while only one in eight of the workers will be a miner most of the others will also be engaged in nationalised concerns. At Thornton, which is not very far away, huge sums of money are to be spent on the railway marshalling yards. Glenrothes will house a considerable number of railway workers, and as, presumably, the Government do not intend to denationalise the railways those people will still be working for a nationalised undertaking. The environmental improvement in Glenrothes is wholly due to public enterprise.
It is no exaggeration to say that at least 90 per cent. of the people who will live in Glenrothes are members of the Co-operative movement. They have every reason to be suspicious of private


enterprise. Anyone who has been employed in the mining industry or was employed by the railways during the days of private ownership has reason to suspect anything to do with private enterprise, and if a mandate were asked of the people of Glenrothes I am certain that they would all opt for public ownership of public houses. The Corporation itself is against the Bill.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): No.

Mr. Hamilton: I shall be glad to hear the views of the Joint Under-Secretary on that. I have been informed that the Corporation did not like the principle of the Bill, and I believe that is still its view. I cannot speak for East Kilbride, and the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), in whose constituency East Kilbride is situated, is apparently not very interested because I do not see him in his place and he was not on the Standing Committee to discuss the matter.
7.15 p.m.
I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary that the Government have everything to gain by leaving Scotland out of the Bill. It would permit comparisons to be made between public ownership in the new towns in Scotland and private ownership in the new towns in England, which would show which system was efficient and which inefficient. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) would no doubt get his analyst to compare the gravity of the beer in the publicly owned houses in Scotland with that of the beer in the privately owned houses in England and that would show us which was the more efficient system.
The Government believe that private enterprise is more efficient than public enterprise. Here is a chance to prove it. I can see no valid reason why Scotland should not be left out of the Bill. There are only two new towns in Scotland, and I am sure the people of Glenrothes would support the Government if it left Scotland out of the Bill.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: Two speakers have advanced certain reasons why Scotland should be left out of the Bill, and I should like to add a third reason. This is an English Bill with a

Scottish application Clause. I am conscious that there are sometimes very cogent reasons why there should be one Bill applicable to both Scotland and England, but those reasons have no validity unless three conditions are fulfilled.
The first condition is that the Bill is a lengthy one; the second, that the main provisions of the Bill apply equally to both England and Scotland; and the third, that the application Clause is both simple and short. None of these prerequisites applies to this Bill. The Bill is not lengthy, for it extends only to some nine Clauses in 12 pages. Secondly, the main provision, which is Clause 4, the licensing Clause, has no application whatsoever to Scotland, and for its application requires an entirely new Clause. Thirdly, the application Clause is complex and very long in relation to the length of the Bill, extending over four pages, which means that it is a third of the length of the Bill.
For those reasons, Scotland should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. It is intolerable that those who are concerned with the application of a Measure in Scotland should have to go about with a pair of scissors and a pot of paste to make an English Bill into a Scottish Bill. There is no reason for it. The Government have had ample time and the Scottish Grand Committee was largely unemployed last Session—we could easily have had the Second Reading and the Committee stage before the Scottish Grand Committee. If that had been done, we should have had adequate expression of Scottish opinion. As it is, we have had no expression of Scottish opinion from the other side of the House, except from the Joint Under-Secretary, and we did not have adequate representation in the Committee. These are good reasons for rejecting the application of the Bill to Scotland.
We are coming now to a new Session in which, I take it, there will be a certain amount of legislation. If the conditions which I have laid down are not applicable to that legislation the Secretary of State should in every case insist upon having a separate Scottish Bill. If he cannot get that, he should insist that the Measures be drafted as Scottish Measures with English application Clauses. We should then put an end to the ridiculous position we have here in that this short Bill is


quite meaningless because of the difficulties and complexities of the application Clause.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I feel sure the House would agree that the case put by the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and his colleagues has been put very fairly, reasonably and persuasively. Were it not for what the right hon. Gentleman ultimately wants I would find myself in considerable agreement with his speech. It is the end which he desires with which I cannot agree.
The right hon. Gentleman began his speech—and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) supported him—by deploring that there was not a Scottish Bill dealing with this matter. I can sympathise with that point of view. Often in the House I have complained that Scottish problems are tacked on to English Bills, so that I can begin my reply tonight by understanding the point of view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. But in this matter of new licensing legislation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, and as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows even better, it has not been the custom of this House to introduce separate Scottish Bills. In fact, it has been the reverse. Let me tell the House the facts. There has not been a separate Scottish licensing Measure since 1913, and in the meantime four United Kingdom licensing Acts have been passed.

Mr. D. Johnston: But would the Joint Under-Secretary not agree with me that none of those four Measures has made radical alterations such as the radical alteration that is made by Clause 4 of this Bill and the second part of the application Clauses?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I would have to search our memories to be sure that that was a sound statement. I certainly would not like to accept it just now. He is a lawyer and I am not. He ought to know better. I do not know if it would be true that these Acts since 1913 have not substantially altered the position in Scotland. But, if that is a valid argument, why did hon. Gentlemen opposite not insist upon a Scottish Bill when they introduced this great change in 1949.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is quite a different proposition? The Bill that was introduced in 1949 was not a question of altering the licensing laws; it was a question of establishing new towns. That was an entirely United Kingdom Measure, and the question of licensing was incidental to the establishment of the new towns. This is a rather different proposition. A small section of the 1945 Act has been taken out, and it deals with two separate things that have been in existence for generations.

Mr. Stewart: The argument of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley was that where no Scottish Bill was provided in the past it was because there was no drastic change in the law. What I am suggesting is that in 1949 there was a drastic change in the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I be allowed to put my point? The Act of 1949 proposed that the new towns, which until that moment had been run under private enterprise, should suddenly come under State management. Whether that was right or wrong I am not at the moment arguing, but it was a drastic change of the Scottish licensing laws. If it were right then to regard that as a United Kingdom matter, why is it wrong to regard the repeal of it as a United Kingdom matter? My view is that we are entitled on the precedent established by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to act as we have done.
But it is more than that. What we are considering in this Bill is a simple problem of planning licensing facilities in new towns. I suggest there is not very much difference in the planning of licensing facilities in new towns whether they are in Scotland or in England. The problem is exactly the same, and, therefore, we are entitled to do as we have done.
The right hon. Gentleman next asked, what is the view of Scotland on this Bill. He said, "Who wants this Bill?" The right hon. Gentleman asked me that question on Second Reading, and my reply to him now must be the reply I gave to him then. Where was the demand for the Bill brought forward in 1949? There was no vocal demand, and I say frankly to the House that there has been no very strong public opinion


expressed in Scotland one way or the other. It just happens to be the fact, though perhaps it is a pity. Some may deplore it, but it is a fact that, as I told the Committee upstairs, we have had only one direct approach turning down the whole Measure, and that has been from the Rechabites in Shetland. As there has not been any opposition I can only assume that the public of Scotland regard this as a reasonable, sensible Measure.
I am fortified in that view from another direction. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have my friends in the temperance movement. I was brought up in the atmosphere which he understands. I have never understood that the temperance movement in Scotland was in favour of State management. On the contrary, I am quite sure that the Scottish temperance movement—and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), if he knows anything of the temperance movement in Scotland, will agree with this—has been traditionally opposed to that view.

Mr. J. Hudson: Would the hon. Gentleman permit me to say that the temperance movement in Scotland has never been in favour of licensing either?

Mr. Stewart: That is a different subject, which I had better leave alone.
There has been no opposition to this Bill from the Scottish churches except for a brief reference to it in a church magazine. As I told the Committee upstairs, the General Assembly at their last meeting were very lukewarm about the whole thing, and, therefore, I am entitled to say that on our understanding of the traditions of Scottish temperance and church opinion we are entitled to do what we are proposing to do in this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked what was the Scottish approach to this matter. He said that Scottish opinion traditionally was that the public houses in days gone by had certainly led to a great deal of trouble, unhappiness and misery. I agree with that. It is true of the past. I have the clearest and most poignant recollections of my native town, Creiff, on a Saturday night when I was a boy, and what happened then would be regarded as shameful today. All that is past. It does not happen today. There

has been an enormous improvement, and we all want to see that continued.
The right hon. Gentleman pleaded very eloquently for better provision in the new towns, and we are completely in accord with him. That is what this Bill intends should be done. We do not intend to do it by State management, which has its virtues—as I saw in the north a week or two ago—nor do we propose to do it by unadulterated private enterprise. We seek in this Bill to apply the advantages of both those systems. The State, in the sense of the corporation, will make a plan and will determine what kind of public house or hotel there is to be and what amenities are to be provided. They will then invite competent hotel or public house people to run the concern.
7.30 p.m.
I have recently seen State-management places in the North of Scotland. I saw several of them, and I thought they were well-run, clean, well-appointed and well-managed; but I must tell the House of the criticism that I found in those areas about those institutions. It was chiefly that here was a monopoly, not only now but for ever and ever, and that there was never going to be any chance of any other kind of person being allowed to run a licensed hotel or establishment. I must report to the House that I found that criticism very widespread in that area. I do not therefore feel entitled to propose an extension of that experiment to other parts of the country.

Mr. Woodburn: May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he is falling into the mistake that his right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House? He is talking about a monopoly of the buildings. The other question which was raised was the monopoly of the type of liquor sold. The complaint, as I understand it, is not against the ownership of the property. Nobody is objecting, even in the new towns in England, to brewers occupying the property. What is objected to is that only one type of beer is to be supplied. The hon. Gentleman has conveyed the impression that there is a monopoly of that kind in Scotland, but I hope that he will make it quite clear that there is no monopoly of beer in the Scottish State-managed public houses, that there is no single liquor


supplied, and that there is entire freedom for the customer to get what he wants when he goes to this kind of public house.

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not thinking of the beer, or of the supplies, or anything of that sort. I was saying that in Cromarty and Gretna only the Secretary of State for Scotland can manage licensed public houses and hotels and that that system—that complete monopoly—was not regarded favourably by the local Scottish people. That is all that I was saying. Nobody in this House, on that side or on this, has or had any mandate to extend the Carlisle experiment of State management further than it now exists, and we have no right to propose such a step.

Mr. Hale: In this Bill—

Mr. Stewart: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was here at the first. He has probably just arrived. I have already explained—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has said that I probably have only just arrived, whereas it is evident to everybody, except to himself, that I spoke on the last Amendment. I wanted to ask what was mandatory about the Bill, since there was nothing in the Conservative Party programme which suggested the Bill at all.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I was merely concerned that two hon. Gentlemen should not be on their feet at the some time.

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman had been present when I started speaking he would have heard the answer which I sought to give to that very point, and I do not think the House would wish me to repeat it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at it in HANSARD tomorrow.
We do not feel that we have any mandate for extending the Carlisle experiment, attractive as that experiment is. We have said that there are virtues in that experiment, but there are also virtues in the private enterprise management of hotels. I have said that nationalised hotels in the North were well-managed; but they are no more so

than other well-managed hotels in Scotland. There is also virtue in an individual or in a company running a well-managed hotel or public house.
What we want to do is to marry these two systems. I venture to put to hon. Gentlemen opposite the point that this is another experiment that we are trying, this blending of the two systems. Why not give it an opportunity to express itself in the new towns, where the committees will be composed of representatives from the two important interests? The licensing authorities will be equally represented with the corporations and all the members of the joint committee will be, in a sense, representatives of public opinion. We hope that they will all be men and women of sense and experience. The chairmen of these committees—this point was put to me by the East Kilbride Corporation—will, we hope, be men of outstanding position and independence of mind.
In such an atmosphere there will be every incentive for the committees to bring about just that substantial, striking advance in the whole atmosphere of public houses and hotels which the right hon. Gentleman and I both wish to see. I therefore ask him to give us an opportunity to try this experiment. He said that his fear was of a haphazard inspiration on the part of somebody or other to open a public house. I do not think it can be so, because the place of the house, the kind of house and the amenities and services to be provided in the house, are to be laid down as a condition of the tenancy. It may be that a corporation, such as Glenrothes, might even see fit to build a public house or a hotel and let it out to a suitable person. We are sure that they will be public spirited enough to see that the right man is chosen.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was against the kind of place where we could get drink and drink only. No doubt he meant alcoholic drink. He wanted public houses where people could get other drinks and refreshments. I found public houses in the State management area in the North that did just that. There were ordinary bars where customers could get tea and coffee if they wanted them. I was very pleased to find them. There was also, in the Dingwall area, one bar where there was nothing but alcoholic drink, and I was told that that one bar was the most


popular in the town and that when it was opened it was crushed and crammed by people as intensively as the bar which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Why was that? Because the State management in the area found there was a demand for that kind of thing as well as for the tea, coffee and cocoa kind of drink in other houses. Are we to say that we shall lay down to the public what they shall and shall not have to drink? Is it not better to leave the joint committee to say, "Let us provide for all tastes, provided conditions are attractive"?

Mr. Woodburn: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but the House ought to have a correct picture. I think he will agree that the other State-management places he is talking about had been in existence and were taken over, and had the same difficulties as other people who want to recondition premises in that they were hampered by all kinds of restrictions. While what he says is true, we must remember that such conditions are quite different from those in the new towns, where we shall create entirely new conditions.
I am not holding up State management as necessarily perfect, and I have criticised some of them myself in times gone by and had them improved. No doubt they would be improved if the Secretary of State could get permission to improve them from the Ministry of Works. However, that has nothing to do with the principle of starting afresh and creating an entirely new example, and I hope he will not say that merely because the people had these habits in the past, they will have them in the future.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to call the attention of the House to the fact that we are on the Report stage. We have now had several interventions from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope hon. Members will remember this and will confine themselves to one speech except by leave of the House.

Mr. Stewart: I quite see the point of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a fair interruption, but I was endeavouring to point out to the House that the tastes of the public everywhere are not the same, and that while in one part of the same town a public house may find it worth while to provide a lot of other services,

in another part they may not be so popular. I offered as an example what was happening in Dingwall and I gave the House examples on the Committee stage of places in Carlisle and elsewhere where the State management officials had endeavoured to press the sale in certain areas of things other than alcoholic drink and had experienced the greatest difficulty. The public is a strange animal. It varies from place to place, and I only ask that we recognise that fact.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) and I made a pleasant, friendly visit to some Fife schools the other day. I very much enjoyed having him with me. That brings me to the case of Glenrothes. The hon. Gentleman has claimed tonight, as he claimed earlier, that if a vote could be taken at Glenrothes the people there would be against this Measure. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to hold that view if he likes. All I say is that he has no proof that that view is the right one because no attempt has been made to go from house to house and find out. In any case the Glenrothes population is now only a fraction of what it will be later on, so a canvass would not help us.
Nor do I think the hon. Gentleman would be right in suggesting that because in Glenrothes most of the people talked about are now working in some kind of nationalised industry therefore the nationalised control of the public houses is a proper thing. In East Kilbride it is not so. There we have in the Rolls Royce firm a brilliant example of private enterprise, a vast concern employing perhaps thousands of workers. So one cannot lay down rules of that kind.
I have met both the corporations. They are not opposed to this Bill. They have never expressed direct opposition to the Bill, although East Kilbride expressed direct opposition in 1949 to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. They have not expressed direct opposition to this one, although they have made certain comments and raised certain difficulties. I think I can assure the hon. Member for Fife, West, that we have met all the objections of the Scottish corporations and therefore feel entitled to go ahead.
I ask the House to give this new enlightened experiment a chance. Possibly it may prove in the course of years to be not as good as we here think it should


be, but at any rate it has all the makings of being a success. It combines the advantages of both systems and, because of that, I find it impossible to accept the suggestion that Scotland should be left out of this Bill. In fact, I believe it

will be of great advantage to Scotland to be in it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 263.

Division No. 232.]
AYES
[7.45 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Glanville, James
Murray, J. D.


Adams, Richard
Gooch, E. G.
Nally, W.


Albu, A. H.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Oldfield, W. H.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orbach, M.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.


Baird, J.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paget, R. T.


Balfour, A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bartley, P.
Hamilton, W. W.
Pannell, Charles


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bence, C. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Parker, J.


Benson, G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paton, J.


Beswick, F.
Hastings, S.
Pearson, A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Poole, C. C.


Boardman, H.
Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Porter, G.


Bowden, H. W.
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bowles, F. G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pryde, D. J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reeves, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Burke, W. A.
Janner, B.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rhodes, H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Richards, R.


Carmichael, J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Clunie, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, C.


Collick, P. H.
Keenan, W.
Schcfield, S. (Barnsley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Crossman, R. H. S
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Daines, P.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalton, Rt. Hon H.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, J.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Logan, D. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dodds, N. N.
McInnes, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Donnelly, D. L.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Driberg, T. E. N.
McLeavy, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S. T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Manuel, A, C.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Messer, F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fienburgh, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Finch, H. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Monslow, W.
Timmons, J.


Follick, M.
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, F.


Foot, M. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Forman, J. C.
Morley, R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mort, D. L.
Watkins, T. E.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moyle, A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)


Gibson, C. W
Mulley, F. W
Weitzman, D.




Wells, Perey (Faversham)
Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Wells, William (Walsall)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


West, D. G.
Williams, David (Neath)
Yates, V. F.


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)



White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Holmes.


Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)





NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McAdden, S. J.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Foster, John
McCallum, Major D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McKibbin, A. J.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Baker, P. A. D.
Gammans, L. D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarly)


Baldwin, A. E.
George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Banks, Col. C.
Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Barber, Anthony
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horneastle)


Barlow, Sir John
Gough, C. F. H
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gower, H. R.
Markham, Major S. F


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marples, A. E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maude, Angus


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maudlins, R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maydon, Lt -Comdr S. L. C.


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mellor, Sir John


Black, C. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Molson, A. H. E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hay, John
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bossom, A. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Bowen, E. R.
Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar


Brains, B. R.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Cmdr, A. H. P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nugent, G. R. H.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Odey, G. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Holt, A. F.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bullard, D. G.
Hope, Lord John
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Wetton-supar-Mare)


Bullock, Capt. M
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Osborne, C.


Bullus, Wins Commander E. E
Horobin, I. M.
Partridge, E.


Burden, F. F. A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig, C. H. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Channon, H.
Hurd, A. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E 'b' rgh W.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Price, Henry (Lewitham, W.)


Cole, Norman
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Colegate, W. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Conant, Maj. R. J, E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rayner, Brig, R.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jennings, R.
Redmayne, M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Renton, D. L. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robertson, Sir David


Crouch, R. F.
Kaberry, D.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robson-Brown, W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Deedes, W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, R. S.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Donnar, P. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Drayson, G. B.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Schoneld, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Drewe, G.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott, R. Donald


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Linstead, H. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, William


Duthie, W. S.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fell, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)







Snadden, W. McN.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Soames, Capt. C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Watkinson, H. A.


Speir, R. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Stevens, G. P.
Tilney, John
Wellwood, W.


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turner, H. F. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Storey, S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Vane, V. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wood, Hon. R.


Studholme, H. G.
Wade, D. W.



Sutcliffe, H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, William (Bradlord, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Oakshett.


Teeling, W.
Ward, Hon George (Worcester)



Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2.—(COMMITTEES TO DETERMINE DISTRIBUTION OF LICENSED PREMISES IN NEW TOWNS.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "if," to insert:
it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of the proximity of any two new towns it is expedient that one committee should be appointed for them and.
The next Amendment is consequential to this one, and there are also further consequential Amendments later on the Order Paper.
During the Committee stage of the Bill the Government were pressed to insert words limiting the power of the Home Secretary to direct that there shall be a joint committee for two or more new towns to cases which may be conveniently described as those similar to the Welwyn and Hatfield new towns, which are literally contiguous. My right hon. and learned Friend promised that he would consider the arguments which were brought forward, and I think that the Amendment meets the points that were put. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) suggested that the power should be limited to the case of two new towns only, and I think that that point is fully met.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) has an Amendment on the Order Paper: in line 14, after "more, "insert" "contiguous." If accepted, that would limit my right hon. and learned Friend's power to the case where two towns are literally touching one another. The right hon. Gentleman would probably agree that that might be a little too restrictive. The precise legal meaning of the word "contiguous" would, I think, require actual contact, and it might happen that a case with such close proximity that to the layman it was contiguity would not

be so in the eyes of the law. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to accept the words which we propose. The words "by reason of proximity" will cover the sense of his Amendment.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Why not "close proximity"?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: "Close proximity" does not add anything. "Proximity" means nearness, and whether there is a difference between nearness and close nearness I do not know, but I do not think it would take the matter any further.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I raised the question because I thought the hon. Gentleman was himself raising that very point. Contiguity, of course, is one thing. There may have to be physical nexus, which is another matter. Proximity might be nearness, and yet it might not be near enough. "Close proximity," which was the hon. Gentleman's own phrase just a moment ago, is, however, rather another matter.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If I used the words "close proximity," I must apologise for something that is almost a tautology. I think there is nothing to be added to the word "proximity" by defining it as "close proximity," and I hope very much that the House will be willing to accept the Amendment as giving effect to the views which were expressed in the Committee upstairs.

Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the Amendment, which, I think, meets the points that we raised in Committee. To my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), I say that I am not at all sure that this is not a case where looseness rather than closeness of phrase may possibly be to everyone's advantage.

Mr. Woodburn: I am grateful. The word "contiguous" was proposed not because we thought it was the best word that could be found but as a kind of memory tickler to see that the point was not forgotten and that the promise was fulfilled.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 14, leave out from "for," to end of line 15, and insert "those two new towns."—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

8.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 40, and to insert:
(2) The Secretary of State shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act or the coming into operation of the order under section one of the New Towns Act, 1946, designating the site of the new town, whichever is the later, consult with the development corporation of the new towns or town affected, with every local authority whose area includes any part of any new town affected and with the licensing justices for every licensing district which includes any part thereof, and also with such other persons and bodies of persons as appear to him requisite to be consulted, as to the constitution of the committee, and shall then prepare a draft scheme for the constituting of the committee.
(3) Any scheme made under the foregoing subsection—

(a) shall specify the number of members of the committee, the persons by whom and manner in which the several members are to be appointed, and the period for which they are to hold office;
(b) may contain provisions with respect to the manner in which the scheme may be varied and as to the duration thereof and the making of a new scheme to take effect on the expiry of the previous scheme.

(4) When a draft scheme has been prepared the Secretary of State shall send a copy thereof to every such development corporation to every such local authority and to the licensing justices for every such licensing district as aforesaid, together with a notice specifying the time (not being less than twenty-eight days) within which representations with respect to the draft scheme may be made to him.
(5) The scheme shall have effect when confirmed by the Secretary of State either as submitted by him in draft or subject to such modifications as may be made by him in consequence of any representations made to him in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing subsection.
The Amendment is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), four of my hon. Friends—two of them Scottish and two English—and myself and is designed to

set up a different type of organisation from that envisaged in the Bill for mapping out the plan of licensing which would ultimately have to be submitted to the licensing court before final arrangements were made for the setting up of licensed premises in new towns.
The Bill says:
For … determining the number, nature and distribution of licensed premises in new towns there shall be a committee.
Those words are imported, "determining the number, nature"—and I shall deal with that word, "nature"—"and distribution of licensed premises."
The Bill as it stands proposes to do this work by the constitution of a committee under an impartial chairman appointed by the Secretary of State. I can believe it possible that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would appoint a strictly impartial chairman, but I should also believe it possible that there might be gentlemen who might occupy the position of Home Secretary whose appointments would not be so impartial.
Secondly, the committee is to consist of two sections equal in size, one to be representative of the magistrates of the licensing courts, which is to have the ultimate decision and which will sit in the position of a judge on the proposals made by the committee of which they form half. The other half is to consist of representatives of the corporation.
We are not satisfied with that organisation and have made a proposal based upon a provision that existed in the original Act which this Bill proposes to amend. The proposal we made is that before anything else is done there shall be a consultation by the Secretary of State with the development corporation of the new town and with the local authority. If there be two or three local authorities consultation should be with every local authority for every licensing district. It should also be with such other persons and bodies of persons as appear to be requisite to be consulted, as to the constitution of the committee that shall then prepare the draft scheme.
The important point is that this proposal of ours insists that a great body of people interested in the problems of licensing and public order and the consequences which unfortunately often attend licensing conditions should be consulted. They include people like


members of temperance societies—which, quite frankly, I put first because they have been paying special attention to this issue for many years, appearing in the licensing courts and to the best of their ability advising the magistrates on the issues with which they have to deal.
They also include organisations such as the churches, who are showing themselves increasingly alert to what is involved in this Bill—I know that in many cases they desire to be consulted about the development taking place—educational bodies and representatives of youth organisations likely to be affected if there is too much licensing in the area where the youth organisations are at work. There are many other types of person who can very well be brought into consultation regarding the plan that should be adopted and the oversight of that plan in its early stages.
I would remind the Home Secretary that at the end of the Committee stage, under the wretched arrangements that have been made for curtailing our discussions, I was on my feet trying to move an Amendment, to which no attention was paid and no consideration given. It was that there should be an advisory committee, additional to the committee of which I am now speaking, which could make a general survey of what was going on in connection with licensing in the new towns. It could make reports on the results of licensing in the new towns if necessary, to the Home Secretary in order to guide him as to what mistakes were being made or what negligence was being committed.
No attention was given to that and the whole thing was jettisoned, like so much else which I think might have been useful in the development of this Bill. I am, therefore, now the more insistent that the Home Secretary should give careful consideration to the method he has adopted with a certain amount of enthusiasm.
I know that he has been closely connected with this proposal in the Bill from the days of the Morris Committee which dealt with the overspill areas and licensing in towns destroyed by the blitz. The Morris Committee recommended this proposal which the Home Secretary has taken up and made the central part of his Bill. I thought at the time of the Morris Committee that it was an inade-

quate arrangement and that it was particularly wrong that there should be half the members of this controlling committee consisting of representatives of the licensing court who themselves would ultimately sit as judges to decide whether a proposal coming from themselves should be accepted.
That is a most unjudicial way of proceeding and anything which would bring into the committee representatives from a wider field of activities I hope might be considered by the Home Secretary at this stage as a good proposition from a juridical point of view. It would make the committee less liable to the criticism and attack which will inevitably be made against it when it is pointed out that half the members in the licensing court have the judicial job of deciding what licences there should be when they have made the running at an earlier stage in a committee of which they constituted half the membership.
It is not only a question of the number of licences or the siting of the licensed premises in the new towns that we have to take into consideration in this matter. As I emphasised when I opened my speech, the nature of the public house to be licensed is a matter of importance to which in the past little attention has been given. There is, for example, the nature of the public houses in Carlisle where, from my point of view, all sorts of helpful regulations have been introduced.
There is, for example, the regulation forbidding the advertising of liquor and its merits. Those advertisements do not appear in the Carlisle premises. There are regulations which insist upon a careful provision of all types of refreshments in addition to those of an alcoholic character. There are regulations which lay down that not only shall there be provision for but there shall be definite encouragement of the sale of non-intoxicants. In Carlisle, steps are taken through the nature of payment to managers to encourage the sale of non-intoxicants. Bonuses are offered to encourage that sale.
A committee set up in the form which I propose ought to take all these things into account in these modern days if the real needs of the public in the fullest possible sense are to be considered. On the


question of the nature of licensed premises, as I reminded the Committee upstairs, I do not see why there should not be, as there is in "The Pheasant," in Carlisle, a room entirely separate from the drinking facilities, completely separate from the house and reached by an entirely separate entrance.
One can go into that room and not realise that one is in a public house at all. There is neither smell nor suggestion of liquor anywhere. The girls working in the room are waitresses in a café. They are not barmaids and do not look like barmaids. The people who go into the room and make use of it include boys from the local secondary school. That is why I thought it good to have near to customers of that sort people of ordinary character rather than to have barmaids, who have a special job to carry out in public houses.
That room in "The Pheasant" was an indication of an effort to bring the public, who, in the past, have used the public house, into association with something that had less dangerous consequences in the life of the community than the drinking habits of the community have often brought in their train. All these things have to be considered. I am surprised that I should have to emphasise them to the Conservative Party. After all, they have a record on this licensing question. In the days of Lord Peel's Commission licensing regulations were introduced which showed that the Conservatives themselves thought that drink was not like other commodities but was to be regarded as a dangerous thing in the life of a community, to be restricted and dealt with on the most careful basis.
I suggest that the danger still remains. I am not yielding to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) when he talks about the greater content of water in the drink today. All the water put into the drink would be good from my point of view, but somebody is always anxious to strengthen the drink. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch seemed to want to have beer of a stronger character in the new houses. I want it weak, and I can imagine that a committee which had to confront the problems of disorder in a community which arise from the drinking of strong liquor would agree with my

point of view rather than with the view of those who want to strengthen the liquor.
8.15 p.m.
I can imagine that even Lord Woolton would agree with me about this. When he was Minister of Food I went with a deputation to complain to him about the waste of food in the manufacture of drink. His answer was that the drink which was being provided in war-time under Ministry of Food regulations was drink of practically a temperance character, since there was so little alcohol left in it.
We should bear all these considerations in mind in connection with public houses in the new towns. It is because I believe that the sort of non-juridical organisation that the Home Secretary visualises in this Bill will not take proper account of these propositions that I am now asking the House to consider the setting up of a wider organisation as suggested in this Amendment.
I sincerely trust that the Home Secretary will yield. He seemed to be yielding to my persuasions in the Committee when I talked about the need to be careful about this thing and the need to look for opportunities to develop the sale of something other than alcoholic beverages in licensed premises. I thought then that he was yielding, and perhaps now he will be willing to consider this matter as a serious problem to be examined.
I am certain that outside, in the churches and in the temperance movements, the refusal to accept this suggestion—in the way that so much has been refused by the Government in this Bill, which I have called and still call the brewers' Bill—will leave the gravest reflection against the Tory Party and the Tory Government because of their failure to meet a great social consideration. I put the Amendment in all seriousness to the Home Secretary.

Mr. J. Kinley: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so I hope I am speaking entirely without prejudice, not being a frequenter of "pubs," not a magistrate, not a member of the licensing bench nor ever likely to be, but being a member of the public who, over a long number of years, has


been able to see that however well the licensing justices may have done their work in the past there has always been much room for improvement from the point of view of public welfare.
There is even room for improvement in many parts of the country from the point of view of public decency; for things have been tolerated which never should have been tolerated. Indeed, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the history of this trade is a long-drawn-out history of a struggle by the authorities to secure from or impose upon the trade ways of dealing which would give less offence to the public at large.
Even now there is no other trade in this land which requires such careful and continuous scrutiny from the police. Having experienced that myself as an interested member of the public in the old towns, I want now to add my plea to that of my hon. Friend that we may make a new start in the new towns by providing, first of all, that we shall have a different authority from the old routine licensing bench which in the rest of the country in the old days brought so little improvement over such a long time.
Let us make a fresh start by seeing, so far as we can, that the new ideas, which are bound to develop in the new towns step by step as the population grows and becomes more diverse, become effective and that it shall be possible year by year, or periodically at least, for an entirely new mind to be added to that which is going to decide how many licensed houses there shall be, where they shall be sited, and what shall be the nature of their operations—that is, the extent to which they shall serve the public other than the public which goes there for the consumption of alcoholic liquor.
May I, incidentally, utter a word of warning to the Home Secretary and suggest, assuming he will accept the principle here involved, that he should safeguard improvements? I should like to call his attention to an incident, without mentioning names. He may or may not have heard of it. There was an occasion when, after a fair amount of public outcry against certain results that accrued from certain public houses, there came a plea for an additional licence. It was granted, but on conditions. The conditions imposed were those which arose out of the

outcry that had recently made itself felt in the local Press.
The licence was granted on condition that there must be a part of the premises to which the public could have free access for the consumption of light refreshments and non-intoxicating liquor. In other words, the licence was allowed on condition that a part of the premises would be made into what we would call a café. The brewers agreed and they got the licence. They still have the licence. The café or tea room has long since disappeared and the licensing bench who imposed that condition have gone. An entirely new licensing bench, operating according to the old ideas, now annually renew it, but the tea room has gone.
Therefore, it will not be sufficient to provide in the new Bill for that kind of thing to be done unless the Home Secretary can find some means by which an improvement such as that—desirable in the opinion of most of us—can be made permanent at least until all the new committees, expressing the new ideas of the new community, shall decide that, after all, what was imposed by a previous committee may no longer be desirable and, therefore, changed.
We want the new population to be able to express its new ideas through a new form of committee, and if we can get that we shall have done something to improve the Bill which we have tried to kill but have so far failed.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that no one in the House will think I am being hypocritical when I say that I have listened with great interest to both of the speeches that have been made, because both hon. Members have marshalled their arguments and expressed their points of view with great sincerity and force.
As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) said, the provisions which the Amendment proposes are adapted from Section 1 of the Licensing Act, 1949, which provides for the constitution of local advisory committees. The intention of this Amendment quite clearly is that the committee should be a broadly based representative body corresponding to the local advisory committee. I think I have quite clearly in mind what the two hon. Members intend. That is my difficulty in the matter, and I should like to develop my point and put it to the House.
We find difficulty in accepting that the 1949 provisions are a suitable model for a body which has such very different tasks as the committee established under our Bill. The hon. Member for Ealing, North will remember that although initially the local advisory committees under the 1949 Act had some say in the planning, their main function was to provide a link between the State management organisation, which, of course, would have come into force under that Measure, and local interests and views on the operation—and may I emphasise that point—of the State management scheme.
They would have been invited to approve of plans laid before them by the development corporation in consultation with the local State management officials. But under this Bill the committee will have different functions. They will have to initiate the plans and they will have no supervisory function as regards the running of the licensed premises. The supervisory function will be in the hands of the licensing justices as it is today.
8.30 p.m.
The point which I should like to put to the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Amendment is that a body which is to deal with the purely planning aspect should, from the point of view of effective working, be less widely based than an advisory body. I quite accept that if it is going to be less widely based we must have some other method of getting the views of those interested bodies of which the hon. Member for Ealing. North spoke. I want him to believe that I am not avoiding that point. I shall come to it in a moment. But I think that one has to consider the position of the development corporation with great care.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to imagine the position of the development corporation under his plan. Unless the scheme which his Amendment suggests were to give them something like half the membership of the committee the development corporation would be in a very difficult situation, because they are responsible for the general development of the new towns. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate my difficulty. Unless we are to give them about half the seats on the committee they will be under-represented. If we give them half the seats

on the committee there will be the difficulty that we are bringing in the representatives of the other local authorities and crowding out the licensing justices who are tremendously important.
I know that the position of the licensing justices is a difficult one. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the juridical aspect, and that is extremely important. I do not want anything I say to seem to under-estimate its importance, because from whatever angle we approach it as to our personal tastes we all agree that it is most important that the licensing justices should be impartial and should deal with the problem without bias.
But when we consider their problem we see that it is very nearly, if not entirely, a problem of local government. They have to make a judicial decision on the evidence before them, but what they finally decide is whether that new housing estate or that area which has been developed shall have another public house or should have a removal, and so on. They are really considering, in rather the same way as in other functions a local authority considers, the government of their area, except that it is taken out of a politically elected body and put into the hands of a judicial body. That is why I think that one has always to remember that important aspect of their work.
I speak with great diffidence in the presence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, who is a distinguished historian; but I think that the more one goes back into the history of justices the more one finds them engaged in administrative duties.

Mr. Kinley: Could the right hon. Gentleman deal with the justice of histories?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not want to pursue that fascinating by-path, though I am sure that the hon. Member would be interested if we had more time to do it. I shall not go further today. That is the aspect which I think should be borne in mind, and that is why I have come to the point of view that the planning committee ought to consist of the development corporation and the justices, and I do not see the space for the others.
There are two points on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One is that


I believe just as strongly as he does that bodies like the Temperance Council or the churches or youth societies or local authorities should be able to make their viewpoints felt, and if there were no method of doing that before reaching the final stage, in front of the justices, I should not be at all happy about my suggestion. But my answer, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the provision for a public inquiry, and there I believe we shall see the proper representation of those points of view.
First of all, take local authorities. In my experience of public inquiries, which, from the advocate's point of view, goes back quite a number of years, I have always found that a representation by a local authority is treated with great respect. After all, it is one of the things into which a person holding an inquiry can get his teeth—the view of the elected representatives. I also take it that the views of the churches and youth societies would receive proper consideration. I separate them from the temperance movement only because they are speaking from an angle which is not that of a particular view on the question.
But I also believe that we should get full consideration of the views of the temperance movement. Probably I have used this argument before in front of the hon. Gentleman: in my early days, now, unfortunately, some 15 or 20 years behind me, when I used to have experience in this class of work, I always found that the advocates for the temperance point of view were most skilful in making their point. I have mentioned in front of the hon. Member an old friend of mine, Mr. Stephen Dodds, a former Member of this House, who used to do that work over a large part of the north-west of England, and did it with great success.
I am sorry I am taking so long, but I want the hon. Gentlmen to believe that I have considered the point.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is quite true to say that the magistrates and the development corporation must substantially constitute this committee. As far as I can see, that is the practical method. But is there any reason why the outside groups, those who are interested and whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts are interested, should not have their view expressed and canvassed? Is there any

reason why they should not be asked to nominate someone who could be incorporated into the committee?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that point could be met. I apologise to the House if I did not put this very skilfully, but the fact is that the development corporation are not tied to put on to the committee members of the development corporation, although they have the right of nomination. I am taking now not what could happen but what is likely to happen; and what is very likely is that one representative of the development corporation part of this body would be a representative of local authorities in the area.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: With an instruction from the Home Office to that effect, that might be all right.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will promise to consider it administratively.
The other point I wanted to make—I hope I can make it quite shortly—is one both hon. Gentlemen made. I have tried in the Amendments I have put forward—I shall not discuss them because we have not come to them—to meet the point made about the provision of other amenities including meals and non-alcoholic refreshments. Whether I am successful the House will tell me later, but I have tried to meet that point by making it the duty of the committees to consider those things and to make proposals unless they have good reason for not doing so.
I have put that forward. Of course, it is the duty of the justices in that case to give effect to those proposals. I shall consider it again because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) made an interesting point about ensuring continuity. I hope that that will ensure continuity, but I shall look at that point again because I was interested in the example that he gave.
I am very sorry I have not been able to meet hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on this point, but I hope they will forgive me for explaining how I have considered the point and what I am aiming at by the provisions I have put forward.

Mr. Ede: Let me assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his deep sorrow that he is unable to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North


(Mr. J. Hudson) on this matter is also sincerely felt by us on this side of the House. I am bound to say that I think the difficulty that the right hon. and learned Gentleman experienced in his speech in explaining what the procedure was does indicate the difficulty that confronts him and us in dealing with this particular point in the Bill. My own view is, as I expressed it in Committee, that a very great deal of the success of any proposal will depend upon who prepares the scheme and the period at which general public opinion can make itself felt in the preparation of a scheme.
I myself would have preferred the scheme that was put forward by my hon. Friend, that was taken, I think, almost word for word from the 1949 Measure; because it seems to me that the various—I do not like to use the word "interests"—but the various influences in a district that make themselves felt on this kind of issue ought to have a very large share in the actual shaping of the scheme; for it is one thing to appear with suggestions on a scheme someone else has prepared, and quite another thing to present one's own scheme and for other people to express their views on that; and with the initiative remaining with the general body of public opinion.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that I have always felt myself that such a committee was probably even better than the system of local option, to which, I know, he is wed. I am, therefore, disappointed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not felt it possible to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
I share also very much the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) with regard to the position of the licensing justices. After all, under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's scheme represenatives of the licensing justices will form half the committee—if we ignore the chairman: half will be the development corporation and half the licensing justices. It seems to me that when they have to exercise their ordinary functions it will be very difficult for the other licensing justices, who have not been on the committee, to depart in any way from the decisions that have been reached by the committtee on which their representatives sat.
The idea which up to the present has been the conception of the law, that the licensing justices sit and listen to the evidence that is brought forward on either side in cases of this kind, is one which ought to be preserved, and the fact that some of their number have already expressed a view with regard to the proposals may make it exceedingly difficult for the justices to perform when they sit as the licensing committee of the area.
I therefore think that on both counts the proposals in the Bill leaves a very great deal to be desired. I had hoped that we were getting away from the idea that justices had anything to do with local government except hearing cases that were brought before them, either by or against local authorities, and to get them involved in affairs of local administration is to put them back into a position which since 1888 in most things and since 1894 in all things they have not occupied.

8.45 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I just have one friendly crack at the right hon. Gentleman? I thought he was a very distinguished member of a standing joint committee himself.

Mr. Ede: Yes, and may I say that no crack which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could make would give me greater pleasure, because those who have heard me more often than the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I have persistently denounced the position of the standing joint committee, and particularly the position of the justices on it. Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned it, I may point out that it was only enacted because of the fears of the Tory Party in 1888 that the recently enfranchised agricultural labourers would elect Radical county councils and it was unsafe to trust the management of the police to such revolutionary bodies as it was feared had been created. One has to administer the law as one finds it, and to hope that one will get an opportunity of removing those anomalies which excite derision when one is engaged in the task. I think that the divorce of the justices from all forms of local government except the management of their own benches is a thing to be welcomed.
There is one other matter with which I have never been quite sure how the right


hon. and learned Gentleman expects to deal under his own proposal. In all the new towns except two there are a number of existing licences, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I went together to any of these districts, looked at the map and surveyed the district, we would come to the conclusion that the number of existing licences is more than sufficient, certainly for the existing population, and in one or two cases sufficient in number to deal with the new population. After all, I did have a couple of years in which I had to consider this matter as Secretary of State, and one of the points was the fear of the existing licensees that their licences in future would not be held in their present position.
I very much doubt if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to give a guarantee that every existing licence in the new town will be in the same position when a proper layout of the licensing provisions for the whole area has been taken into account. I am not quite sure, and I have never been able to discover in this Bill, how the existing licensee is to be dealt with. Who is to prepare what we had in mind under our Bill—a general scheme for the new town, viewing it as a community as a whole and considering the number of licences it ought to have, the nature of the licences and how far the existing number of licences was sufficient to deal with the whole area?
I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers that this Bill is largely based on the licensing and planning proposals for which he was responsible for introducing into the House when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was Secretary of State. I have not been quite sure how the principle was applied there, whether a licence that was not required in the rebuilt area was to be transferred sometimes into a new area of the same district and sometimes into the overspill area. I have never been quite sure how he proposes to deal with that matter.
I should like to have heard in his explanation of the way in which his scheme works wheher he is going to rely on the operation of the existing law to deal with what may become redundant licences when the new town is developed,

or if this point has really received serious consideration in the framing of this Measure. It is a practical point which really gives anxiety to the licensees in the districts which have become new towns. If, on the other hand, we are to understand that what I may call the orignal core of the new town is to be left untouched, and the new town is to be considered separately with regard to licences, I can see some very difficult circumstances arising for all concerned with the trade.
The proposal which has been put forward is that there should be a committee to consider this matter, consisting not of the development con poration and the licensing justices, but of all whom I have described as an influence in the town who want to build up a social community that shall have reasonable facilities for all forms of social enjoyment. Such a body would, I think, be able to deal with this problem of existing licences and their proper disposal or continuation in the new town with an authority that the development corporation, plus the justices, will not be able to attain.
In this selection of advisory committees, which, after all, I think had all been appointed by the time I left Office, I had that particular question very much in mind, because we all desire that the new town shall be a unity. That is to say, what we want to avoid is having a little core of people who are the old inhabitants surrounded by or having as an appendage the new inhabitants existing side by side for some years not as a community but as two communities, possibly having some hostility one towards the other. I believe that a committee on the lines of that indicated in my hon. Friend's Amendment would be more conducive to building that up than would be the proposals of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The development corporation cannot be taken as representative of either the existing community at this stage or of the new community.

Mr. Lindgren: It was not meant to be.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend says, "It was not meant to be." I understand that it had a job of work to do, and that is to provide the houses and the factories in which the new community will live and work. The majority of the people on it


are not resident in the area but have been selected for certain technical qualifications in building and town planning which are not really very essential to an understanding of the problem which is presented to us at this stage of this Bill.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the committee which he proposes has a different task to deal with from the task imposed under the 1949 Act, but I still think that task is the essential preliminary to the adequate discharge of any other task which may be imposed on it. I should have hoped that between now and the final consideration of the Measure in another place the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have had another look at this issue. It might very well be that the local advisory committee for which we asked could be brought in as a preliminary body to any body of the kind proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman so that the initiative would rest with a body representative, not of the narrower viewpoints of the development corporation and the licensing justices, but of the viewpoints of the community as a whole.
I tried as far as I could to get representatives of the trade itself on the committee. I believe that while the trade—as far as I am concerned, I should not do anything to bring the trade to an end—is a recognised part of the community the conditions under which it is to carry on its business is a matter of some concern to itself. I was once met by a deputation from the Brewers' Society which said, "We have our representatives on all these committees. Have you any objection to their meeting together to talk over the difficulties which they meet in their respective areas with a view to their taking some action based on mutual enlightenment?" I replied that they could have such a meeting as long as they did not ask me to pay the expenses of calling it together.
I suggest that the bodies mentioned by my hon. Friend—and I would go so far as to suggest possibly a representative of the bodies whose claims were so eloquently put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville)—should have some relation with this, because the best form of licensing planning carried out in the ordinary areas

can sometimes be put completely at variance and reduced to a condition of some chaos by the indiscriminate opening of clubs.
I say that as one who is president of a working men's club and has been connected with working men's clubs and institute unions for over 50 years. It is desirable that they should be brought in, and as far as I know there is nothing in this Bill which will enable the Home Secretary, a development corporation or the licensing justices to deal with the question of clubs in these new towns. Subject of course to police objection in a very limited sphere, anybody who can produce 5s., a book of rules and a list of members is entitled to have his particular project registered as a club.
9.0 p.m.
This matter with which we are dealing is one which not only concerns the success of the licensing provision in the new towns, but also the success of the new towns themselves. We made provision earlier today to meet the needs of temporary premises. I am quite certain that it is going to be somewhat difficult to get these houses erected at the present time. I accept the figure which was given earlier today by the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), that any licensed house that is likely to be recognised as a permanent licensed house in a district like any of these will in the future cost from £25,000 to £30,000. That represents an expenditure on materials and labour which at the present time is wing to be very difficult to justify, especially if it is to be taken out of the provision that has been made for houses, schools and hospitals. I hope that this is a matter which can be regarded as completely without any party bias.
I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary is very much like I was when I was at the Home Office. I would have liked to build a couple of new prisons. I doubt whether two would be enough now. I lived in the hope from the earliest days of my sojourn in the Home Office that I should be able to build a couple of new prisons. But what Secretary of State would dare to come to this House and ask for materials and labour to put up a couple of new prisons? In the same way, but not in any way comparing new public


houses and old prisons, I doubt if the right hon. and learned Gentleman or anybody else connected with the new towns would feel that they had any hope of getting a provision for new public houses at the present time.
With the provision that we made earlier this afternoon, I would venture to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is plenty of time for this matter to be dealt with, and that the chance of getting a representative and general body, who will give consideration to the needs of putting forward a scheme to be submitted to the development corporation and considered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, would really be the best way of dealing with this matter. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to believe that we put this scheme forward because we are anxious for the success of the new towns. We are anxious that the licensing provisions shall be adequate and suitable, and we believe that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North represents a way of securing this that is better. It is an essential preliminary to get a sound scheme that is worthy of the hopes we all have for the new towns.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not know whether the House will give me leave to speak again [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that I do not want to obtain a failure to divide by any false pretences. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are entirely free to divide or not, as they like. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of a most ably argued speech, put forward with great force what I would call a preliminary conception. I should like to look at it. I shall have a look at it. I cannot make any promises at this stage in the Bill, and I do not want anybody to believe for a moment that I am doing so. I promise to look at the proposal because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point.

Mr. Bing: I shall not take very long in what I have to say. I much appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but there is one practical difficulty to which it is only right to call the attention of the House.
I have seen in the Press a statement that the new Session of Parliament is

to be opened on 4th November. If that is so, and this matter is to be submitted to another place in the short time that remains, we shall not have the value of the counsel that one normally gets there. In the other place there are Members attached to the brewing profession. They were enobled in previous years for the contributions they made to the success of the various parties that have been in office. On the other hand, there are some very distinguished members of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party, like Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who was lately chairman of Lloyds Bank. He has investigated this whole matter and he gave evidence before the Royal Commission. He would be in a good position to make suggestions. We cannot have a proper discussion of the Bill in another place if it is to be rushed through.
I want to get an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that adequate opportunity will be given in another place for such great experts there to consider the matter fully and give us the value of their counsel from the experience which they have had. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or one of his colleagues, will be in a position to say that the Bill will be introduced immediately in another place, and that there will be a full and ample opportunity for discussion.
It is extraordinary for a controversial Measure of this sort to be pushed through a House which contains 25 of the most senior bishops, who have all something to say on temperance questions. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that their mouths should be shut and that no bishop is to be allowed to speak because the right hon. and learned Gentleman's time-table will not allow it?
That is what the brewers are saying. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read this month's "Brewers' Journal." If so, he will know that it says:
No delay in the House of Lords to be tolerated.
It is all right for the right hon. Gentleman to say that when the Bill goes to another place it will have adequate consideration, but his master's voice has already spoken. We ought to have a statement to the effect that there will be adequate opportunity.
After all, one of the issues in the General Election was that the House of Lords should be given more opportunity for studying questions. The bishops and the temperance leaders who are in the House of Lords ought to have an opportunity for considering the issues raised in the Bill. They should have an opportunity of considering what the "Brewers' Journal" has to say. This House has voted every one of the Amendments proposed by the Brewers' Society, and has turned down every one which they opposed. That, as we all know, is purely coincidental. But we should not suppose that necessarily the majority in another place is so subservient to the wishes of the Brewers' Society as is the majority opposite here, and there ought to be a reasonable opportunity.
I shall not stand in the way of the compromise suggestion presented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If he wants to think about it again, let him do so, but he ought to have not only a think himself; he ought not to refer to another place as something which carries out his imprimatur. He ought to take into consultation the various people whose abilities have been so lauded in the recent Election campaign, whose powers, whose concentration, whose opportunities for study and thoughtful consideration of legislation have been praised.
Let us have a proper consideration of this matter elsewhere. If we do not, I think there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who will take the view that one month, being twice as long as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing to allow another place to consider the proper term for considering the most controversial piece of legislation he has introduced this Session, is quite long enough for another place in which to deliberate.
In those circumstances, I hope we shall have from the right hon. and learned Gentleman an undertaking that, even if it means postponement by a week of the opening of the new Session, they will not cut short the right of the bishops to talk about temperance, or even details of temperance, or to be subordinated to the interests of the brewers. That is the sort of question the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to answer and that is

the sort of question we have a perfect right to ask in this House.

Mr. J. Hudson: By leave of the House, in an attempt to pour a little oil on the troubled spirit, and in view of the genuine attempt made by the Home Secretary in a difficult situation, I appeal to him to think it out again. I have not given up hope entirely that he will arrive at something that will meet the very strong case put up by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, after "term," to insert "not exceeding three years."
The Bill as drafted provides that the appointment of a member of a committee shall be for such a term as may be determined by or under an order of the Secretary of State and there is no limit in the Bill to determine it. This Amendment sets a three-year limit on the powers of the Secretary of State though, of course, he could exercise them so as to provide for a shorter period.
The Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend on an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winter-bottom). Perhaps Mr. Speaker, you would allow me to refer to the next Amendment on the Order Paper which is really part of this one?
The House will appreciate that if a limit is set to a term the question at once arises whether it would lie in the power of the Secretary of State to make a person whose term had expired eligible for reelection. The Amendment to line 28 after "State," to insert:
with or without eligibility for being reappointed, as may be so determined.
provides that such a member may be eligible for re-election.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: May we take it, Mr. Speaker, that for the purposes of convenience we are discussing the two Amendments together?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly.

Mr. Ede: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his


hon. Friend for an explanation of the rather peculiar wording of the second Amendment. I do not recall ever seeing before the phrase "with or without eligibility." Does this mean that it might be that in one of the schemes there would be a term of years fixed and a statement appended that certain people would not be eligible for re-election, but that others to whom that was not applied might be eligible for re-election?
I have always thought that the giving of eligibility by no means meant that the person concerned had been granted a freehold but that when his term of office expired, while the person appointing him could reappoint him, he was not bound to do so. It might create some difficulties if a man was to be asked whether he would serve for a term of years and was then to be told that no matter how well he did the job, he would not be reappointed. Most men taking up this kind of work like to feel that if their services are well rendered, some appreciation will be shown in the form of extended opportunities.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If I may have the leave of the House to reply, I think that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the words of the Amendment would give complete discretion to the Secretary of State. He could make what rules he pleased, but, of course, he would exercise that discretion in a reasonable way. I do not think it would be possible to lay down in the Statute exactly in what way he should exercise that discretion. There might be cases in which it was thought desirable that there should be no eligibility. It is unlikely that the Secretary of State would make those cases apply to particular individuals, although it is conceivable that it might be desirable to do that.
I think it best to leave the matter open so that the Secretary of State can make rules. No doubt the rules, generally speaking, will be in general form so as to apply to all members of the committee equally, and I should imagine that in the ordinary way it would be left open for the member to be reappointed at the end of his term, subject, perhaps to an age limit or something of that kind.

Mr. Bing: I hesitate to intervene on this but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I took a considerable

part in the discussion on this matter in the Committee. I have never understood—I should like to say a word in defence of the "Morning Advertiser" in this matter—why the Bill was originally drafted in the fashion that it was. Why did we not follow, and why have we not yet followed, the wording of the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has always said that what he is trying to do in this is to get as near as he can to that Act.
The Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, provided for all these matters and set them out very clearly. It was amended, I think, without a Division in the House, by the general agreement of everybody, by Section 31 of the Licensing Act, 1949. It was amended to repair an obvious omission. That particular provision contained a modest addition, which, I should have thought, when there arises the question of what is to be put in in another place, might also be considered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The words of the Amendment to the 1945 Act by Section 31 of the Licensing Act, 1949, are these:
The appointment of a member of any such committee (unless his office is earlier abolished by the expiration of this Act. …
In view of the very transitory position which right hon. Members opposite occupy, I should have thought we should not give these people three years certain. How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that this Act will continue for this time? Why does he not see fit to insert the same saving phrase as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) introduced when he was amending the Act introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself?
This is not a major point and there is a great deal to be discussed in the quarter of an hour which is all that is left to deal with five Clauses of this Bill. How far we shall get in that time I do not know. I shall not delay the House further on this point, but I suggest that in the interests of proper drafting of legislation which is a matter on which hon. Members opposite pride themselves—they do not care much what is in it so long as it is properly drafted—they ought to follow precedent. They should see whether they cannot follow the words of the Licensing Plan-


ning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, which was introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself and the Licensing Act, 1949, a Clause of which was introduced, I think I am right in saying, with the blessing of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 28, after "State," insert:
with or without eligibility for being reappointed, as may be so determined.

In page 3, line 9, leave out "or more."

In line 12, leave out from "by," to "as," in line 13, and insert:
one and partly by the other.

In line 35, leave out "or more."—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Clause 3.—(PROPOSALS AS TO NEW LICENSED PREMISES.)

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, after "section," to insert:
to consider from time to time, having regard to the existing circumstances of the area for which the committee is constituted and of the proposed development of that area, the requirements of the area as respects licensed premises, the accommodation and amenities which should be provided thereat and the facilities which should be available thereat for obtaining both intoxicating liquor and meals and other refreshments.
(2) In the light of their consideration of the matters aforesaid, any such committee shall proceed.
There is a group of Amendments the results of which the House might perhaps like me to indicate. They are at line 42 and at the beginning of page 4, line 1, to leave out "(2) Any such," and to insert "and the", and page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert:
including, unless the committee in any particular case otherwise decide, provisions for the service of meals and of refreshments other than intoxicating liquor.
They deal with the points raised during debates in Committee when there was discussion as to the powers of the committee to specify the accommodation, amenities and services to be provided in new licensed premises. The general view of the Committee appeared to be that committees under the Bill should have not only the power but a duty to see that the new licensed premises in their new towns

as a whole provide a good range of services and amenities, including in particular meals and non-alcoholic refreshments.
I promised, first, to put into the Bill an express reference to the provision of meals and refreshments and, secondly, to reconsider Clause 3 generally with a view to giving the committees clearer directions to take into consideration various matters mentioned in the course of the debate.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have put down Amendments on the same point and I will mention them because I am accepting one of them. If the right hon. Member will allow me, in view of the circumstances, to indicate the position, I propose to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and I hope he bears me no ill will that I added my name to his Amendment in case circumstances of time caused it to be lost. That Amendment is, in page 4, line 3, to leave out from "and," to "contain," and to insert "shall."
Therefore, with my Amendments and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, which I accept, I hope that I have met substantially the views of the Committee. I know that I am taking a slightly different line from that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), but I think that I have gone a considerable way to meet him. The only matter which, as I understand his Amendment, is not met is that perhaps I have not followed to the extent that he has the significance of the words
… consultation and negotiation. …
that occur in his Amendment.
I have tried to take into account these Opposition Amendments as well as the points made during the debate. The difficulty which I have with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is that I felt that it did not quite fit the circumstances and that the right hon. Gentleman's taking it from Section 4 (1) of the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act. 1945, did not quite fit the circumstances.
With regard to the third Amendment, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling will allow me to say so shortly and with great respect, I wanted to find words which, in my view, were more precise but would cover the points he had made.
If I may sum up, the first Amendment with which I am now dealing will require the committee under the Bill to reconsider the requirements of its area
as respects licensed premises, the accommodation and amenities which should be provided … and the facilities which should be available … for obtaining both intoxicating liquor and meals and other refreshments.
and to make their proposals in the light of their consideration of these matters.
I accept the first Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling so that the committee would be required to specify the accommodation, services and amenities to be provided in every case. Thirdly, the third Amendment with which we are now dealing will require the committee to include provision for the service of meals and non-alcoholic refreshments
… unless the committee in any particular case otherwise decide, …
The general effect will be that the committee will first have to consider its area as a whole with a view to meeting local requirements in the way of licensed premises, and secondly will have to draw up a detailed specification in every case and, in particular, will have to provide for meals, etc., unless, after considering the matter, it finds a reason for not doing so; and then the licensing justices have to be satisfied.
I felt that I had to leave that safety valve. I know that some hon. Members opposite may think that I should not have done it; but one can imagine a certain class of premises, necessary for the requirements of a part of a town, which would be of a small type where these other amenities would not be suitable and yet the premises would meet a need. I have turned it that way and have said that they must think of and provide these things unless they are satisfied that the contrary should be the case.
I cannot expect and do not expect that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) should be completely satisfied, but I ask him to believe that I have tried to meet his point. I have been greatly helped by what was said from all quarters in committee on this. I hope that our proposals will go some way to meet the results which the hon. Member desires.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It is impossible in the circumstances in which we are meeting to do other than express regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not accept the form of words that we put on the Order Paper, because that would have enabled him to give an explanation about what he proposes to do with the existing licences.
Of course, it is impossible to do more now than indicate that that is the position, and I sincerely hope that tomorrow, when we have the Third Reading, we may get from him some explanation of the way in which he proposes that the existing licences, where they are in excess of what will be required, shall be dealt with by the committee and the machinery which he proposes.
Apart from that, I can assure him that my hon. Friends appreciate the way in which he has met the spirit of the considerations which we have put before him. As an ex-President of the Ramblers' Association, I should particularly like to express the hope that he will find some opportunity of extending some of these provisions to other Measures governing licensing provisions elsewhere, so that people who are trying to enjoy the beauties of the countryside generally may be in a position to have facilities that are now to be assured to inhabitants in the new towns.

Mr. J. Hudson: The Home Secretary rightly surmised that we on this side of the House should be disappointed with his new offer. I agree that he has gone some way, but there will be left a serious problem to be dealt with. With all that is involved in the development of new towns, I do not think that merely for the sake of leaving in the middle of a town some unsightly place where drink may be the main thing for which that place is organised, he ought to have declined to accept the reasonable Amendment and the genuine appeals that we have made to him on this issue.
As the time is now against me and other hon. Members, I should like to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself faces the same situation that I face. He has not been able to make a statement that can really be satisfactory to the country or to the House on what is involved in this proposal. I submit that


although he is about the best of a bad bunch sitting on the Front Bench opposite, he ought to feel thoroughly ashamed of himself for having imposed on the House the gag by which we are prevented from dealing with a genuine proposal. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) ought to feel as much ashamed as anyone.
I know, as I look around the House, that there are many Members present who are aware that had this issue been more fully explained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman it could have been made to look infinitely better in the country than it looks now. The position appears to be this: this House winds up these discussions with the proposal that might have helped to make decent places of all these new public houses, yet—

It being Twenty-five Minutes to Ten o' Clock (consideration of the Bill having been entered upon at Twenty-five Minutes to Four o' Clock), Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order (21st July), to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments proposed by Members of the Government of which notice had been given.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 1, leave out "(2) Any such," and insert "and the."

In line 3, leave out from "and," to "contain," and insert "shall."

In line 7, at end, insert:
including, unless the committee in any particular case otherwise decide, provisions for the service of meals and of refreshments other than intoxicating liquor."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Clause 7.—(DURATION OF SS. 2 TO 4 AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 13, leave out from "that," to end of line 15, and insert "and another new town."

In line 17, after "town," insert:
and thereafter this section shall apply as if under section two of this Act the committee had been constituted for the said other new town only."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Clause 8.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 31, at end, insert:
(2) Sections (Temporary licensed premises) and six shall be omitted.

In line 44, leave out "and," and insert:
(d) the expression "intoxicating liquor" means exciseable liquor; and.

In page 10, line 47, leave out "or."

In page 11, line 1, insert:
(4) It shall not be lawful—(a).

In line 2, after "or," insert:
(b) for.

In line 5, at end, insert:
(c) for.

In line 18, leave out "paragraph (b) of."—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

Clause 9.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT.)

Amendments made: In page 12, line 10, leave out from "aforesaid," to "as," in line 11, and insert:
land excluded from such a site by the variation of an order, whether before or after the passing of this Act, shall be treated for the purposes of sections two to eight of this Act.

In line 17, after "have," insert:
save as otherwise provided in this Act."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Orders of the Day — Sehedule.—(REPEAL OF PROVISIONS AS TO STATE MANAGEMENT IN NEW TOWNS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 11, at end insert:
In subsection (3) of section one the words from the beginning of paragraph (b) of the proviso to the end of the subsection are hereby repealed.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

SHIPBUILDING (STEEL ALLOCATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I want to take the opportunity tonight of raising some points for discussion about one of our major industries, the shipbuilding industry, which vitally affects my own constituency, because for the last 100 years Sunderland has rightly claimed to be the largest shipbuilding town in the world.
When shipbuilding has prospered Sunderland has prospered; when shipbuilding has slumped, Sunderland has been paralysed by the misery of mass unemployment. I am sure that the Civil Lord would agree at any rate with this, that whatever the depressions which this great industry has faced in the past and whatever difficulties it may face in the future, the hard work, enterprise and initiative of the shipbuilding industry is equal to any in this country.
The tragedy in the past has been that time after time the industry has faced a position in which its workers have been neglected and wasted. In Sunderland at times we have had nine out of ten of the shipbuilding workers unemployed. Consequently, against this background, and in spite of the present prosperity and the present all-time-record order book which the industry has, the shipbuilding industry must always remain fearful of the threat of depression.
It is not surprising therefore that when the Lloyd's returns for the second quarter this year showed that only 206,000 gross tons had been commenced in that quarter—the lowest figure for any quarter since the war—and, moreover, when the Lloyd's returns revealed that that represented only 19 per cent. of the world tonnage, against the 40 per cent. of the world tonnage which was being constructed in 1951, the industry felt some apprehension and concern.
The shipbuilders themselves have attributed this to the steel allocation scheme and the working of that scheme. May I say at once that the shipbuilders have not been misled by the Conservative Party? They accepted the re-imposition

of controls as being absolutely necessary. In fact, Mr. Ramsay Gebbie, for whom I have the greatest respect, and who was at the time President of the Shipbuilding Conference, said that
When a basic raw material is in seriously short supply, there is an obvious need in the national interest to determine the best use of what is available.
That is a proposition which I accept and which I hope, in the light of experience, the Conservative Party will begin to accept.
But what the Shipbuilding Conference complained about was that, although they accepted the necessity for an allocation scheme, the shipbuilding industry was not near enough to the front of the queue; and they claim that they are receiving about 50 per cent. short in the steel they require to make full use of the yards.
Although the Members for the shipbuilding constituencies in the North-East were a little upset that we were not notified of his visit, I am sure we were all very pleased when the Civil Lord came to the North-East to visit the yards on the Wear and the Tyne, and when the Civil Lord met reporters we were happy to learn through them that the allocation for the fourth quarter is to be 8 per cent. higher than that for the previous quarter.
But, perhaps like Oliver Twist, I say that is not enough, and the industry says that is not enough. It seems to me that it does no more than reflect the improved steel supply position and is no effort to meet the fundamental objection of the industry to the present level of allocations. I admit at once that at Newcastle the Civil Lord claimed that we could now build at a higher rate than at any time since the war, but I think he was rather optimistic. I think the industry will still be faced with the problem of keeping heavy capital equipment under-employed with the consequent rise in costs and short fall in production at a time—and this is the significant thing—when our percentage of the total world shipbuilding is falling.
I therefore put these questions to the Civil Lord. In dealing with the allocation, is he satisfied that the industry is holding at least eight to nine weeks steel stocks in hand? I mention that figure because I remember that when I met Sir Stafford Cripps in 1948 he regarded this


as a minimum. We were inclined to agree that this could be accepted as an absolute minimum. I ask the Civil Lord, what is the stock position in the industry at present?
Moreover, it has been a constant complaint of the shipbuilders this year that the steelmakers have been unable to honour to the full extent the authorisations. This is an entirely new situation. I remember again that when we met Sir Stafford Cripps in 1948 he revealed to us that in the previous year the shipbuilders had received 23 per cent. over and above their allocation, and it is a fact that on previous allocation systems the shipbuilders have always somehow or another contrived to get well above their allocation.
Another real complaint made by the shipbuilders is this question of out-of-sequence deliveries. This is a vitally important matter to an assembling and prefabricating industry—to an industry which is prefabricating on the scale the shipbuilding industry is. The Civil Lord, I know, recognises this is a problem, because at Newcastle he said he would take the problem of irregular deliveries back with him to the Admiralty and see what he could do about it on his return to the Admiralty.
I notice that in its Supplement yesterday "The Times" still deals with this question of deliveries being made out of sequence, and I should like to ask the Civil Lord whether any progress has been made in overcoming what appears to be a very real complaint of shipbuilders, not only about getting enough steel, but that the steel supplies are coming in the wrong sequence, which contributes to increasing costs and prejudices them in the world market.
So much for the steel allocation. I want to raise a few more points on the immediate prospects of the shipbuilding industry. I would say at once that it is very dangerous to generalise from a single quarter's returns in shipbuilding, but I think that the Civil Lord will have to agree, at any rate as far as the second quarter of this year goes, that that quarter shows an appreciable fall in the production rate and that although, as far as I am concerned, the figures for the third quarter are not yet available, such figures as are available show that there has been

a further and continued retardation of the production rate. If that continues it is bound to prejudice the industry in its present real enough difficulties.
One of our leading shipbuilders said fairly recently that the delays resulting from steel shortage may be the reason why some shipowners are having new tonnage built on the Continent. I should like to know whether this is happening. If it is happening it is certainly a most disturbing factor, because it is happening at a time when, quite clearly, the shipping laid down for export is less than last year, the shipping under construction for export is appreciably less than last year, and when shipping completed is also substantially less than last year's.
In fact, if we turn to the Trade and Navigation Returns they reveal, whether we pay attention to quantity or to value, that there has been a very serious fall in the value of the exports of shipping made by this country. In fact, those accounts show that in the first eight months this year compared with the corresponding eight months of last year we have earned £10 million less in foreign currency—over the past eight months.
I should like to draw the Civil Lord's attention particularly to the fact that our most important customer since 1945 has been Norway. In fact, at times Norway has been importing shipping from us at six times the rate of any other country in the world. But, within the first eight months of this year our exports to Norway have fallen by no less than £4,500,000. I would ask the Civil Lord, what does this mean? Does it mean that we can no longer depend to the same extent on the Norwegian market for our exports in shipbuilding? Because if it does mean that, it means that we shall have to face aggravating difficulties in the export field. Whatever the position regarding the export of shipping to Norway, I think the Civil Lord would be bound to agree that the signs are ominous today, when both the volume and the value of our export of ships is falling and at the same time the percentage of British shipbuilding in the total world tonnage is also showing a tendency to fall.
In July I asked the Minister of Labour what effect the heavy reduction on freight rates was likely to have on employment in the shipbuilding industry. The reply then was that the fall in rates had not


reduced the demand for new tonnage. In April, 1951, our freight rates were twice the rates in 1948, but by June of this year those rates had been halved. In other words, they were back to the 1948 level, when a good deal of concern was being expressed in the shipbuilding industry.
Since June, the freight rates have fallen to about one-third of what they were in April, 1951; in other words, the freight rates now are only about three-quarters what they were in 1948. This is very disturbing, not only for the shipping industry but also for the shipbuilding industry, and I should like to know from the Civil Lord what effect he estimates this drastic fall in freight rates will have on the shipbuilding industry, and how real it makes the present enormous order books. Personally, I express this point of view. I think he is being far too optimistic in anticipating that next year, 1953, we shall be able to obtain a production of 1,400,00 gross tons a year.
Another point I should like to raise—and I do so with some diffidence, because I appreciate that it is a very difficult thing to be dogmatic about—is this. What has been the impact of the re-armament programme on our shipbuilding industry? How far is the impact of the re-armament programme the explanation of our present figures? On 9th July the First Lord, in reply to a Question, said:
The total amount of steel allocated for merchant shipbuilding in the Sunderland area for the third quarter of this year is about 12 per cent. less than the corresponding allocation in the second quarter, and represents approximately 60 per cent. to 65 per cent. of the total demand for steel for merchant ships made by the shipbuilders in the area.
If, however, account is taken of the separate allocation made in the first quarter for certain re-armament contracts on which work is about to begin, the allocation is approximately the same as for the second quarter and only slightly less than that for the first quarter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 92.]
I raise this question with some diffidence, because I recognise at once that one of the complaints we have always made in Sunderland is that we have not had a sufficient volume of work from the Admiralty, and that has in the past contributed to our depressions.
We welcome, of course, the placing of the minesweeper orders in Sunderland. At

the same time, I wonder whether the Civil Lord is paying sufficient attention to the future of the Wear yards. The Sunderland yards more than any other yards in the country have always depended almost entirely on merchant shipbuilding. I agree it is that reliance which has made us particularly vulnerable in times of depression, but today we have this enormous pressure on the yards because of their order books, with at the same time the drastic collapse in the freight charges, which, I believe, we must all concede has dramatically changed the immediate prospects regarding world shipping; and at this time the First Lord admits that, as far as our yards are concerned, they are only being utilised to the extent of 60 per cent. or 65 per cent.
This is happening at a time when our proportion of the total world shipbuilding tonnage is falling. Although I raise this point with some diffidence, I should have thought that this was an occasion on which we should pay very real heed to something which the Prime Minister said some time ago. I think that in this particular context we should, at any rate, re-look at the question of the priority of exports.
I would concede at once the proper and legitimate bias of the Admiralty towards defence work. I would concede that defence work is, in the present circumstances, a top national priority. At the same time, there is also the vital problem today of retaining our position in the export market with regard to shipbuilding, especially as I think that most people would fear that in the present circumstances this position may attain for only a few months. In a few months, if the slump in shipping continues we may find the shipbuilding industry facing a very different position regarding export orders. I appeal therefore to the Civil Lord to consider the possibility of regarding in the present circumstances shipping for export as a top, even an absolute, priority.
A point which I believe only applies to the export of shipping is that not only does the export of shipping directly contribute to our present balance of payments crisis, but, in the case of shipping, the export is almost entirely to what I might call the democratic powers and, in fact, although we are exporting shipping, we are building a mercantile marine


which if we were landed in war would, as in 1939, be again at our service. I think that exceptional position relating to the export of shipbuilding should be borne in mind when we are balancing one consideration against another. We should then be prepared perhaps to go further in this case than we might feel we should go in other cases.
In conclusion, I want to say a few words about the long-term prospects of the shipbuilding industry. I know that today there is this very understandable emphasis on tankers. I do not want to make a point about the unbalance of the skilled trades in the industry. I think that we have to meet this tanker demand. The position today, however, is that over one-half of the work in the British yards is on tankers. We are contributing 44 per cent. of the total tanker tonnage under construction.
We talk about an oil hungry world, but how near are we getting towards meeting tanker capacity in the world? Once we do that the only question we are concerned with then is the replacement of the tanker fleet. This is peculiarly a British question because we are so heavily involved in the construction of tankers. I should like to know whether enough thought has been given to the impact that the attaining of capacity in tankers will have upon the British shipbuilding industry, and what steps we are taking in advance to prepare the yards against it. How far, for instance, are we losing, because of our concentration on tanker work, other work competitively in the world position which I have just described? This is no more than a part of what, after all, is a much wider question, that of the future of the shipbuilding industry.

It being Ten o' Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Mr. Willey: I have never hesitated to say that my opinion is that the shipbuilding industry will not be able to maintain the present employment indefinitely. I agree that since the peak employment figure of 250,000 in 1945 there has been a very appreciable run down; more than

50,000 men have left the industry, and it was very much to the credit of the Labour Government that that was done without any substantial unemployment. In spite of that, the industry is still employing rather more than 200,000 men in the yards, over and above which there are at present 7,500 unemployed.
I do not think it can be assumed that the industry will be able to provide continuous and stable employment for all these highly skilled men in the industry. I should like the Civil Lord to tell us what is being done about the fundamental problem in the shipbuilding industry of seeking a level of continuous stable employment, maintaining and preserving a capacity which may be required in national emergency, and maintaining in the limited localities where shipbuilding is carried on skilled workers who are redundant in the industry, whether the alternative employment is to be carried on in the yards preserved on a maintenance basis or in other work in the neighbourhood of the yards.
Incidentally, I should like to know what the National Shipbuilders Securities Limited think about this. They are still in existence and still receiving a levy. What are their plans about this? This problem is fundamental to the industry and I do not believe that it should be neglected now because, very happily for all of us, the yards have continued a very high level of employment and activity since 1945.
I concede at once that this is a far wider responsibility than that of the Civil Lord or the Admiralty. It is an industrial question of vital importance to both our national well-being and our national defence. I hope therefore that the Civil Lord can at any rate assure us that he will use his influence to ensure that this matter is considered and that plans are formulated while we still have good time.

10.3 p.m.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) has raised this matter in a very moderate speech and has dealt with matters of very great importance, not only to shipbuilders but also to the nation. I am grateful that he has given me an opportunity of touching on one aspect which he has perhaps overlooked.
Ultimately shipbuilding depends on shipowning. I do not think I am going too far when I say that the comparative prosperity or depression in British shipyards will ultimately depend on the prosperity of British shipowners. Certainly tonight I admit very freely the importance under present circumstances of encouraging the export of ships, for the shipbuilding industry can make a very valuable contribution to our export trade, but those of us who know something about the shipowning side of the industry are extremely apprehensive of the very large increase in the mercantile marines of the potential, and, indeed, present, competitors of this country.
I do not think I shall be out of order—but I am certainly touching a topic which is outside the remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—when I say that it is really a matter of direct taxation which is handicapping the British mercantile marine today and rendering the British mercantile marine as a whole obsolescent.
There has appeared in the Press during the last few weeks, indeed I think within the last few days, some startling figures with regard to the increase in the average age of British ships, in particular of the dry cargo carriers of the British Mercantile Marine. It has not been easy during the last few years for shipowners to make convincing speeches pointing out that they are suffering under a great handicap because of the high rate of taxation. The reason for that has been that freight rates have been extremely high and profits have been large. Nevertheless, those high rates of profit have been earned by our foreign competitors, many of whom have been charged a greatly lower rate of direct taxation than the British shipowner.
That is the only point I wish to make, and I hope I may be forgiven for doing so. I have certainly done it briefly, and for the second time I have pointed out to the House that in an industry which is competitive in a world wide sense, British shipowners are going to have quite soon—I agree with the hon. Member when he says there is a red light showing for the future—a very different kind of competition. They are going to be in competition with completely modern ships which will compete successfully in the freight market when it becomes depressed, as I feel it may be quite shortly.

10.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I should like to add my plea very briefly to that of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), particularly on the subject of steel allocations to the shipyards. Fairly recently there have been quite a number of cases which have been brought to my notice where the actual allocations to various shipyards have not been met by deliveries for various reasons. Admittedly, those cases have been somewhat isolated, and that state of affairs cannot be said to be general. The industry as a whole has received an increase by 8 per cent., which was the increase in allocations announced for the last quarter of this year.
The argument which is frequently levelled at the shipbuilding industry in this country is that the conversion rate for the steel is not so high in the industry. That means that it does not earn such big money per ton of steel as do other smaller industries making rather more specialised equipment out of steel. Of course, that is a valid argument. Naturally a great many tons of steel go into ships, and the price paid, although high, is not as high per ton as the price paid, for instance, for machine tools where, of course, the tecnical skill applied to a smaller quantity of steel is a fraction higher in proportion to the skill generally to be applied to building ships consuming large quantities of steel.
Against that argument one can say not only that the shipbuilding industry is an extremely valuable exporting industry, but also it is an extremely valuable earning industry of foreign currency. Once machine tools or other technical equipment built of steel are sold to foreign countries they cease to earn money on the British account, whereas British ships built in British shipyards are earning money on the British account throughout the whole of their lifetime. That is the difference, and I feel that is a strong argument in favour of giving our ships a better bite of what is available. We know full well that steel is short, and that a great many industries require it, but I certainly feel that British shipyards are not getting what they should get, and I have seen a considerable amount of evidence bearing that out.
Not only is this a question of earning our living but of long-term insurance, just


as the re-armament programme in general is long-term insurance. Ships are highly valuable in peace-time but they are absolutely invaluable in war-time. For that reason we should see to it, as an insurance policy, that British shipyards get a better deal over the allocation of steel.

10.11 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for giving us an opportunity to discuss this very important industry. I am glad that we have a chance to think about it on the first day after our Summer Recess. The hon. Member raised a number of points, and I shall try to answer them one by one, but I must warn him straight away that the question of freights is not for me to answer. It is not a matter for the Admiralty, which is concerned only with shipbuilding and not with the freighting of existing ships.
The hon. Gentleman set great store by the actual tonnage commenced, but he is probably attaching too much importance to it. In shipbuilding the trends are not short-term but long-term, and what we have to look at is not the figures for one quarter but the figures for a year. When we look back we find that the situation is not nearly so depressing as, perhaps unwittingly, the hon. Gentleman would have had us believe. He has accused me of being too optimistic, but I suggest that perhaps he is being a little too pessimistic. I am sure he did not intend that to be the case.
I must make it clear that it is not the policy of the Admiralty to interfere with the sequence in which shipbuilders fulfill their orders. They receive their orders in a definite sequence from ship owners, whether they be British or foreign, and it is not the policy of the Admiralty to say, "You are to fulfil this order before that one." To do so—I think it was implicit in some of the things which the hon. Gentleman advocated—would be a very large departure of policy which would have very far-reaching consequences.
During the recent visits I have paid to Clydeside and the North East coast I was struck by the progress in modernisation

and prefabrication, both of which are of great importance for the future of our shipbuilding industry. In Sunderland itself I had the pleasure of visiting three different yards, and I was able to see that they were no exception to the progress in modernisation and prefabrication. I was very impressed with the enterprise shown in the new docks they are building.
There is no doubt of the very great importance of the shipbuilding industry, which is making an extremely important contribution to our export drive, not only directly but indirectly as well, as was quite rightly said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon). Ships built for home owners are helping very much in regard to foreign currency. In fact, it is true to say that until quite recently any tanker of reasonable size built in this country for anyone in a soft currency area was saving us no less than two million dollars. That was saved by each tanker completed in British yards and it is obvious to anyone that it is making a tremendous contribution towards solving our present problems.
The hon. Member went on to deal with employment and referred to some of the figures. I think we can say that employment has been steady in the industry despite the steel shortage. It is true that there have been one or two slight fluctuations—for example, in the case of his own town—but there is an obvious explanation in each of those cases and certainly in that case. From 1950 onwards the labour employed on warship construction and repairs increased steadily on account of re-armament and it is now over 22,000 out of a total employed of 157,700. The hon. Member also referred to the importance of conserving skilled labour in the shipyards. I can assure him that this is one of the things which we at the Admiralty have constantly in mind when considering these problems.
Then he went on to deal with steel allocations. Of course, we all wish that there was unlimited steel. In May, 1950, steel allocations were discarded but they had to be reintroduced in February of this year because of the shrinkage in steel production caused by shortage of scrap. Allocations of steel for industrial use are settled quarterly by the Government.


The Admiralty is given an allocation for merchant shipbuilding and is responsible for its administration. Admiralty policy is to divide the steel fairly among all shipbuilding firms in relation to their programmes and their requirements for each quarter. It is the responsibility of the shipbuilders to acquire the steel which they have been allocated. The Admiralty are always ready to help where there are difficulties in acquiring this steel because no rationing scheme is perfect and, of course, there have been a few cases where there have been difficulties of this kind.
Another difficulty is in the sequence of delivery, but once again this is matched very closely with the actual pattern of steel production, and the Admiralty have been in touch with the Ministry of Supply on these questions. The scheme has not been altered since its inception, but we are trying to smooth out these difficulties as they occur. If we look at the figures, we find that up to the end of June last the total allocations have matched up exactly with the total deliveries to the shipbuilders so that over the whole picture the scheme appears to be working fairly well. The hon. Member asked about the actual stocks held in the industry, but I regret that I have no up-to-date figures to give him.
Now we come to the question of future allocations. As he has said, the allocation for the current quarter was raised by 8 per cent. over that for the third quarter. I cannot say very much at the moment, further than that the Government intend to increase the allocation of steel for shipbuilding as additional supplies become available. If they do so, it is hoped to make a further increase in the allocation for the first quarter of 1953, because the need for steel in the shipbuilding industry is fully appreciated by the Government.
Then the hon. Member spoke about the short-term prospects for the industry. When we see that the order books are full for roughly four years ahead, we can only say that those prospects are good. He asked whether there was any significance in the apparent fall for building for export. In point of fact, building for direct exports since 1948 has been about 33 per cent. In 1951, completions for export were 48 per cent. of the total, due

to a large number of tankers which happened to be completed for foreign owners in that year.
With regard to the share of world shipbuilding, it is true that the percentage of ships built in this country has decreased slightly, from 48.8 to 37.7. This has been due, of course, to the rehabilitation of foreign yards, not only the Japanese and those in Germany, but other yards on the Continent, which were damaged during the war. This rehabilitation was bound to come.
Direct exports are well maintained in the order book, and the hon. Member was wrong in drawing the conclusion that they were falling off very much. Of the ships under construction, 33 per cent. are for overseas owners, but not less than 44 per cent. of those on order but not yet laid down are for overseas owners. It will be seen, therefore, that the percentage to be built for foreign owners is increasing rather than the reverse.
On the other hand, it is questionable whether building for export is more advantageous than building for the home market. The Economic Survey for 1947, for example, classes shipbuilding as of equal importance to the export industries. It is certainly open to doubt as to whether it is more advantageous to build for home owners or for foreign owners. The figures I have quoted, which show the dollar saving in the building of tankers, bear out this point of view.
I assure the hon. Member that the Admiralty endeavour to do everything they can to look after the merchant shipbuilding industry. Warship work is relatively small compared with the total, and is integrated with the merchant programme. Therefore, to cancel, as, I think, the hon. Member suggested, orders for the Navy to make way for export orders, would not necessarily help the shipyards.
The long-term prospects for the industry are, of course, difficult to assess. As far as tankers are concerned, I think that the prospects are good. Of the ships under construction, 55 per cent. are tankers, whereas 57 per cent. of the ships which are on order but not laid down are tankers—a slightly higher percentage. The world tanker fleets are already large, and the replacement factor alone would seem to hold out good prospects for


future orders. As for maintaining capacity in the industry to meet national emergency, I assure the hon. Member that the Admiralty have given this point full consideration, and will continue to do so.
The hon. Member made a short reference to National Shipbuilders Securities, Limited. I can assure him that on this point there has been no change of policy from that of the last Government.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) referred to the question of ships for foreign owners and made what I thought a very good point. I am glad he did make it. It was that the question of ships for export cuts several ways. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) mentioned cases where there had been failure to honour allocations. I am afraid there have been a few cases owing to the shortage of scrap. That has led to difficulties in a few cases, but they have been taken up and in most cases the difficulties have been ironed out.
My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the conversion rate in shipbuilding. It is quite true that that is not as high as in some industries and, of course, when we are building as many tankers as we are, the conversion rate is lower than it would be in the case, for example, of passenger liners. Nevertheless, despite that, the importance of the industry is fully appreciated, although the conversion factor may not be so high as that of some others. He went on to say that he did not think the industry was getting what it

should, but I think it has had a fair crack of the steel which is actually available.
In conclusion, the outlook for the industry is, I think, undoubtedly good. We have record order books. The order book for merchant ships at present stands at 6.775 million gross tons of which only 1.922 million are under construction. This leaves a balance of 4.853 million gross tons which represents the tonnage which is on order but has not actually been started. As many of the smaller yards have not such long order books as the larger yards, this means that the larger yards are booked up for a number of years ahead.
The average annual output of new merchant tonnage in the last three years has been 1.359 million gross tons and the outlook for 1952 seems likely to be about that figure. When more steel is available the output should be considerably increased. It is the policy of the Government to ensure that the industry is maintained at a stable and healthy level of activity and to this end the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives of the employers and trade unions and the shipbuilding and shipping industries under an independent chairman, Sir Graham Cunningham, keeps a continuous watch over the state of the industry. I think the House can rest assured that all is well with the industry and that it is making a stable contribution to our economic problems.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o' Clock.